The Ignorance of Bureaucracy and the Servility of the Academic Community

By: Esad Duraković

Whenever we talk about negative phenomena in society, we label the subject that "creates" negative phenomena, trends, etc., as the villain. Such an approach – in the media and in criticism generally – is inadequate and, as such, is principally ineffective.

Namely, in the creation of negative phenomena, there are always at least two subjects: the subject that creates the negative phenomenon and the one in relation to whom it is created; the former is, in most cases, truly a subject, while the latter is merely a (patient) object. The relation is one-way, and it should not be so, because the latter should also be a subject in the full sense of the word: aware, active, decisive, positively corrective…

This is the case everywhere, including in politics, because the situation in society or in any of its segments is never solely the responsibility of the ruling party, but almost equally so of the opposition, which acts insufficiently correctively.

As for the academic community, it is in the same position in principle, even more so. Instead of leading society – critically aware and politically impartial, as it represents the Intellect, the Brain of its society – this community has, in the post-war period, and increasingly with time, become incomprehensibly and unacceptably servile, apathetic, inert… I often think – forgive me – that it is, as such, worthy of contempt.

While this community is clearly provincializing itself to an unimaginable extent, while it is sinking into кадровская sclerosis and self-interest, into opportunism towards politics which imposes its ignorance upon it, instead of the academic community enlightening and leading it, it – the academic community – betrays its very essence and therefore cannot expect things to get better for it… And all together – it will bring the entire society to ruin.

The University of Sarajevo, with its enormous scientific, teaching, and educational potential, has remained as one of the last hopes for the survival and development of our society.

This imposing institution, comprising over 30 faculties, academies, and scientific research institutes, truly represents a precious hope for every thinking person and a cornerstone for the progress of that society. Institutions of this significance and power, in any society and at any time, represent its fundamental source of strength, as they produce кадров in all fields, scientific research projects, etc., meaning that the social significance of the university, especially one as large as UNSA, is incomparable to any other institution.

Its importance is all the greater because it operates in a society that is being devastated and eroded in many essential aspects, which is dramatically fragmenting, so the adequate action of UNSA must be – by its nature – integrative and fundamentally progressive.

In addition to all of the above, the significance of UNSA also lies, in our context, in the fact that it still somehow survives as a kind of "sum" of scientific and educational quality at a time when dozens and dozens of faculties have been established all over this country without valid criteria and standards – a truly dramatic devastation of quality.

Therefore, there are many reasons why UNSA should be at the very center of its society's attention, and vice versa: neglecting an institution of such significance is an expression of that society's immaturity, for which the highest price is paid – general devastation of values and backwardness.

On several occasions, I have written and spoken publicly about how the main problem of UNSA has been for a long time one whose consequences are not currently visible, and that is the significant shortage in the hiring/selection of assistants, i.e., in the vitally important кадров rejuvenation of UNSA, which is becoming too old and could simply collapse in the relatively near future due to its кадров sclerosis. And when I thought that everything had become hopeless in this regard, a "saving" decision from the ruling structures of the Canton of Sarajevo arrived: to gift their University as many as 150 assistant positions in one "package." An impressive Trojan gift!

(For accuracy, 150 assistants will be financed by the KS Employment Bureau, and the contract was signed by the Minister of Education of the KS Government, the Director of the Employment Bureau, and the Rector of UNSA.)

Thus, the KS Government's decision to finance 150 assistants is currently in the implementation phase. After a prolonged shortage in the selection of assistants (in most faculties, or departments), this gesture by the Government seems generous, visionary, strategically wise, because – imagine: as many as 150 assistants in one package! The academic community and the public in general, and voters above all, because they are the most important (isn't this an election year?!), cannot overlook such a huge benevolent move by the Government, to which they should reciprocate with civic and voting trust. However, let's examine the background of this gesture, which is being presented as spectacular precisely to charm future voters. This is essentially an illusory move.

The ruling structures will finance these 150 assistants for only one year; after that – they will have to fend for themselves, and they will not be able to, because there will be no one to finance them, so the vast majority will have to leave UNSA. If the faculties retain the hired assistants, they can only do so by financing them at the expense of other employees, reducing their already discouraging salaries to secure salaries for the newly elected assistants.

The point is that the Government exits this without financial obligations towards the newly elected assistants, and it has achieved ITS GOAL, which fundamentally has nothing to do with science but boils down to its POLITICAL PROFIT. Thus, the Bureaucratic Mind shows that it does not understand the nature, the essence of the кадров at the University at all: an assistant is not the same as a salesperson in a supermarket (with all due respect): an assistant needs a decade or two to develop, to mature, to get a doctorate, etc. By financing them for only one year, the Government has done nothing good; this is a deception that severely devastates the University.

It is incomprehensible why UNSA, or the academic public as a whole, agrees to this obvious deception. It is better to finance 10 assistants permanently than 150 for one year. This is not just negligence towards UNSA, but it is a clear and multiple deception. For years, KS governments have treated UNSA – at best – like any public utility company, even much worse, showing a kind of contempt for science, a fundamental ignorance of its value, while the advanced world invests heavily in science, knowing that it is the foundation of progress.

Since the candidates for these 150 assistants know that their position is guaranteed for only one year (the absurdity is total: an assistant at the faculty for one year!), mostly those who have nowhere else to go, who are not successful, who lack the quality to properly resolve their existential issues (there are exceptions, of course: there are also good graduates who simply lack the right connections for employment), will apply. They will reason that it is better for them to settle somewhere, even for a year. Because, who among the excellent – and only such are needed by UNSA – would leave a permanent job and come for a meager assistant's salary for only one year?! Therefore, excellence is thwarted precisely where it should be favored: at scientific institutions of the highest rank.

The complete ignorance of the nature of higher education, or rather the selection and development of its кадров, is also reflected – even particularly so – in the fact that this Agreement stipulates that ONLY THOSE WHO ARE REGISTERED AT THE EMPLOYMENT BUREAU have the right to apply. This part of the decision is truly for the annals, for the collection of absurdities by which the University is devastated in terms of quality, because such a decision conflicts with the PRINCIPLE OF EXCELLENCE, which has always, for obvious reasons, been the key criterion for selecting assistants.

The criterion in question can (?) only apply to employment in administration or elsewhere, but at the University, the criterion of candidate excellence is thwarted in this way.

This is a unscrupulous decision by the Bureaucracy, which testifies to its flagrant ignorance of the fundamental matters it is deciding upon, or to unparalleled arrogance.

WHY DOES THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY AGREE TO THESE BUREAUCRATIC-POLITICAL SCHEMES?! And to what kind of people are we leaving the University?!

At the same time, this is a convenient opportunity for a type of manipulation. Namely, state bureaucrats will have the opportunity to hire those young people who are close to them in various ways – through kinship or corruption – and for whom they will selectively find a way to finance them even after a year, once they have placed them at the University. Then these employed individuals will contribute to the further degradation of quality at UNSA. The point is that these young people close to the bureaucrats would not withstand the competition under the conditions of selection for a normal assistantship period.

(The inexpressible stupidity of the bureaucracy is also evident in the fact that it overlooks that an assistantship selection period never lasts only one year anywhere!)

III

In the final consequences, such a move by the aforementioned ruling structures is not impressive at all, nor is it well-intentioned. It is – truly fundamentally – the opposite, because it leads to the further devastation of quality at UNSA, which is politically manipulated in something essential for its future. This is a political ploy aimed at dazzling voters. In this way, the bureaucracy shows how it actually cares for itself and not for UNSA, that it does not care about science at all, nor does it know the principles by which it is developed and stimulated.

They have a "vision" only from one election to the next.

And why are you silent, gentlemen of the academic community?

Where is the voice and awareness of the media?!