Political Responsibility Above the Individual: Čović's Political Framework and the "Trojka's" Compromise Behind the Marin Vukoja Case

By: Amina Čorbo-Zećo

The Constitutional Court of BiH will consider the appearance of its judge, Marin Vukoja, at a concert by Marko Perković Thompson at one of its upcoming sessions. However, while the debate about the act itself and potential responsibility is ongoing, the question of political responsibility of those who nominated and elected him is almost entirely unaddressed. And that is precisely where the core of the problem lies.

The statement by the Vice President of the FBiH, Igor Stojanović, that “this was not a question of Vukoja’s appointment but a question of whether we have enough judges at the given moment” paradigmatically illustrates the “take what you can get” policy – an approach where quantity is more important than criteria and values. Such logic reduces institutions to technical placeholders, neglecting the weight and symbolism of the function of a Constitutional Court judge.

Persistent pro-Bosnian politics, which often “buys time until the masters leave,” actually remains without a long-term concept and decisiveness. In the meantime, HDZ and SNSD consolidate their positions, realize projects where they have control, and clearly articulate their goals. The Trojka remains on the defensive, unwilling to make a political cut when necessary, so all flows ultimately go in one direction – to the detriment of the state of BiH.

The leader of HDZ BiH, Dragan Čović, has been building a narrative for years that balances between European rhetoric and tolerance of controversial historical and ideological symbols. His appearance on RTV Herceg-Bosne, with the message “hands off Croats,” further exposed the political position from which he operates. However, the legitimate question is whether such a political model truly protects the interests of Croats in BiH in the long run or confines them within a narrow party framework.

The open support for concerts by Marko Perković Thompson, whose performances have repeatedly drawn condemnation for the use of Ustasha iconography and nostalgia for the Independent State of Croatia, is particularly problematic. When “European values” are simultaneously invoked in public, such support cannot remain outside of political responsibility.

If a discussion about appointments, legitimacy, and value commitments is being held, then consistency would dictate that the political alliance with Čović should also be re-examined. In a democratic society, alliances are not just a mathematical category; they are also moral.

Otherwise, the debate remains selective, focused on the individual, while the political architecture that produced him remains untouched. And without confronting that architecture, it is difficult to speak of the real institutional and value renewal of the state.

The Trojka must understand this, as must any future government if they want the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the full sense of the word.