Who Enjoys Apartheid and Discrimination?

By: prof. dr. Senadin Lavić, Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Sarajevo

The question is painful. Can there be someone who adores discrimination? Why did Monika Mijić and Jelena Cvijetić file a complaint or appeal against the "Kovačević" judgment? They have "confirmed" that Bosnia and Herzegovina is not satisfied with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of "Kovačević v. BiH". They are seeking a review of the judgment. On whose behalf was the Request for review of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of "Kovačević" submitted? The citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina? No, absolutely not. Mijić and Cvijetić had certain policies behind their "request" and they were simply implementing them. These policies do not need the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore, these policies will never allow the state of BiH to approach the EU, regardless of how much our "champions and followers of the European path" express their "commitment" to this daily.

Mijić and Cvijetić submitted this "appeal" on September 19, 2023, which was Jelena Cvijetić's last working day as agent of BiH before the Court in Strasbourg. Twelve days before submitting the appeal, Jelena Cvijetić was appointed as the legal representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the current Council of Ministers of BiH. This was her last move against a judgment that contributes to improving the quality of the legal order in BiH and establishes that citizens in every part of the country can have active voting rights regardless of ethnic-religious affiliation.

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg requested clarification on the mandate of Monika Mijić and Jelena Cvijetić, after Slaven Kovačević sent a letter to the Court stating that the agents were not within their mandate and were in a questionable state, having had their acting mandates extended twice, which can last a maximum of three months.

In the "Kovačević" judgment, the European Court of Human Rights states (rules) that Slaven Kovačević (a citizen of Sarajevo with the right to vote) was denied the right to elect (vote for) a candidate for the BiH Presidency from the "rs" entity, because Kovačević sought and obtained the possibility for every resident of Bosnia and Herzegovina to be able to vote for any candidate for the BiH Presidency, as a collective body that makes decisions within its jurisdiction, but which concern all citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Likewise, let's imagine what the situation is like where returnees to the "rs" can only vote for ethnic Serbs, where candidates are most often individuals who deny the convicted genocide and war crimes. Are Mijić and her friends fighting for such a system, trying at all costs to link ethnic affiliation and active voting rights, which is unconnectable, incompatible, and unacceptable in the modern democratic world? Surely every voter, regardless of their ethnic affiliation, should be able to vote for whomever they want, or do Mijić and others want to convince us that an ethno-totalitarian system is acceptable in Europe? But our future cannot be ethnopolitics and the abuse of the rule of law!

Today, some dangerous policies are trying to convince us that it is "good" that a citizen from Trebinje cannot vote for a candidate from Sarajevo for the BiH Presidency! Likewise, a citizen from Tuzla cannot vote for a candidate from Bijeljina! Bosnians have come under attack from identity wars, hegemony, and conquest. They are trying to reduce them to emptiness and shackle them in an ethno-geographic form from which there is no liberation.

Mijić and Cvijetić did not state on behalf of which citizens of BiH they are seeking a review of the judgment in the "Kovačević" case. This concerns some partial ethnic-religious policy that does not recognize BiH as a state of free and equal citizens. They have drastically expressed the views of HDZ and SNSD towards this judgment of the European Court. The position of agent Harisa Bavčić remained unclear in public, as she did not sign the "appeal" but supported the request for review! Their task was to cast a "negative light" on the judgment, to make it controversial and questionable, in order to continue the senseless game of ethnopolitics against the citizens of BiH.

The defense of ethnic-religious apartheid and discrimination is the defense of the wartime "achievements" of Belgrade and Zagreb policies. All those who today in Bosnia are "selling the story" of the normality of ethnic enclaves where one "votes for one's own" are brakes on the European path of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Some would still keep BiH trapped in ethnoterritorialization, behind which lie misdeeds, war crimes, and genocide. Our task is liberation from the state imposed by war and the liberation of citizens for life in freedom in every part of BiH - ethnic and territorial discrimination of citizens must end. That is why the "Kovačević" judgment is important to us.

Finally, a small suggestion for liberation from ethnic-religious humiliation - no person can be devalued because of belonging to an ethnic group or because of where they live. In socio-scientific research, it would be necessary to develop a scale of ethnofaulism (or briefly: EF scale) as a measuring instrument to "measure" expressions of denial, hatred, belittling, subjugation, insult, defamation of individuals and groups due to their ethnic affiliation in multi-ethnic communities. At the core of these relationships is a conflict over identity and its definition, which turns into linguistic expressions and recognizable forms of action in practice burdened by prejudice. The scale would, for example, need to measure several variables: denial of historical-political particularity, non-recognition of identity (of an individual or group), non-recognition of the name of an individual or group, ridicule of the beliefs and traditions of others, devaluation of tradition, appropriation and theft of others' values, trivialization and appropriation of the culture of others, public slander, denial of identity particularity, falsification of historical facts, and so on. It would, in fact, serve as an instrument for measuring antihuman and antidemocratic potentials and threats to people who have become targets of great-state expansionist hegemonism, for example, or any other hegemonic project directed against a group or individuals due to some of their identity characteristics and specificities.

Then we would know what kind of discriminatory environment we are living our lives in!