(Im)potence of Pro-Bosnian Forces or the Illusion of State-Building Policy

For NAP writes: Sifet Kukuruz, legal expert

Calling for state institutions to be held accountable and to act to protect the constitutional order in a situation where these institutions are dysfunctional or completely paralyzed, or are under the control of those who are acting unconstitutionally, represents an expression of political impotence, not power.

Such calls are difficult to consider an expression of responsible, state-building policy, because the essence of the political action of pro-Bosnian or state-building forces is not and cannot be in the public expression of political views, but exclusively in their ability to implement them in practice. Policy that cannot be realized in practice is not a viable policy, and the existence and functioning of a state, let alone its future, cannot and should not be based on such a policy.

No state can be preserved, built, or made functional if those who create "state-building policy" do not have real political power and do not possess concrete mechanisms to implement that policy in practice.

The measure of success of state-building policy is not in the number of public statements, their rational justification, or emotional patriotic fervor, but exclusively in the degree of ability of state-building forces to prevent and thwart the implementation of anti-state policy in the daily functioning of the state and to effectively prosecute the protagonists of such a policy.

A policy that lacks the capacity for practical self-affirmation and self-realization cannot be called successful, let alone state-building. In the relationship between unconstitutional and constitutional policy, the answer must be sought to the question of whether and to what extent state-building policy is truly state-building.

As a starting point for understanding this relationship, the fact that both policies are harmful from the perspective of state interests must be acknowledged. Unconstitutional policy due to its anti-state and destructive nature, and "state-building" due to its own inability to realize and affirm itself.

In the interest of establishing a truly state-building policy, the fact that the state benefits from neither of these policies must be accepted as reality. On the contrary, the state suffers direct harm from the former and indirect harm from the latter. To avoid incorrect or malicious interpretations of this stance, it should be emphasized that these two policies, apart from their ultimate effects on state interests, cannot and should not be equated. Of course, the measure of harm to the state is not and cannot be the same, but that is a less important issue.

This correlation between unconstitutional and constitutional policy is made solely for methodological reasons in order to better understand the nature of both policies, and especially to become aware of the scope of "state-building policy".

Their correlation is particularly necessary to understand the nature and effects of "state-building policy" which is not backed by real political power, given that such "state-building policy" is harmful because it only creates the appearance of its own state-building nature and produces an illusion of fighting against anti-state actions.

Although anti-state policy aims at the negation and destruction of the state, and state-building policy aims at the protection of state interests, what both policies have in common is that the state does not benefit from such policies. On the contrary, the former openly negates and destroys state interests, while the latter accepts and supports state interests but realistically fails to achieve or protect them.

What kind and how serious "state-building" policies are is sufficiently illustrated by the fact that in everyday life, political actors who do not even participate in parliamentary life, or who not only have no representatives in the state legislative body but also have no such representatives in the state executive branch, lead in state-building statements and other forms of patriotic performance. When we add to this that the judiciary is under the influence of forces that are acting unconstitutionally, the delusion about the existence of strong and effective state-building policies becomes complete.

What should be particularly concerning is the fact that precisely the actors on the political scene who are not political subjects, but political objects that often serve anti-constitutional forces as an excuse or justification for political destruction, convince the citizens of BiH that they are the pillars of defense of the state of BiH.

If it were a politically aware socio-political community, such individuals would very quickly end up on the "pillory of shame" and would not have the opportunity to generate additional frustrations in the public space, while at the same time skillfully using political activism to conduct daily politics and realize personal or party interests.

Emotional patriotic fervor in political activism has never been a measure of political success; it has always been exclusively the ability to translate and implement political positions from theory into practice, and if necessary, by using means of coercion. Therefore, policies whose power is objectified in the form of verbalism are dangerous and harmful to the state.

Those who seek an answer to the question of whether and to what extent a policy is state-building should offer a concrete answer to the question of whether such a policy has real possibilities to effectively translate political positions from the media, Facebook, or other social networks into reality. If such a possibility does not exist, the false attractiveness or seductiveness of such policies can only harm the state of BiH, as it creates a world of illusion and delusion.

A policy that aspires to be responsible and state-building must first establish political-legal and all other instruments for its implementation in practice. Without establishing the possibility and concrete instruments for implementation in practice, policy ceases to be policy and becomes politicking.

And a responsible attitude towards the state and citizens implies that those who publicly express political views can at all times show and prove to citizens that these views are an expression of political power, not impotence. Those who are unable to translate their political proclamations into concrete actions should not be considered responsible politicians. Precisely such an attitude towards these and such actors on the political scene should represent the first, concrete step on the path to creating a state-building policy.