Private or Public, It Doesn't Make Much Difference in BiH

I already knew that the difference between private and public in BiH doesn't play a significant role. Conflicts in the public sphere very often unfold through the prism of privacy. When we want to refer to someone's public work, we call upon privacy.

Thus, criticism of someone's political engagement or, for example, a written text, is primarily criticism of the family or hairstyle of the person being criticized.

The sentence of one politician about another, stating that he does not want to communicate with him because he does not trust him because he has been married twice, is still fresh in my memory.

This thought did not worry anyone, but rather caused admiration for its ingenuity. However, there is another phenomenon related to private and public that occurs on social networks. Oh, I already hear the objection that participation on social networks is a matter of privacy and that I should not mix it with the public engagement of public figures, and especially not with the engagement of politicians.

But I am not mixing these concepts. They have mixed themselves. So, when we see high-ranking officials of political parties writing about their party's political guidelines in one status, say on Facebook, and in the next, offering us completely intimate photos with their loved ones, then something is not right. I know that the trend in the world is to present a politician as a person who leads an impeccable private life and that it is precisely because of this that they are morally suitable for high political positions.

However, this does not mean that they should shower us with their private photos. This is even considered rude. Well, isn't it a bit too much, for example, on a religious holiday, to see politicians informing us how they raise their children just as their parents raised them. In the spirit of faith and the highest moral principles. For starters, belief and religion are in the sphere of privacy. One should not publicly bargain about it in the style of whoever has more photos is a greater believer, and thus a more suitable politician.

Furthermore, is it really necessary to learn the latest details about his latest romances on the often official profile of a politician?

Perhaps it is, but how to draw the line of who is addressing us. A politician or a citizen? Wouldn't it be politically much more effective if, before the elections, instead of impressive photos with children and loved ones, they photographed their property records?

Oh, how impressive and convincing that photo would be. Or, for example, photograph all their real estate acquired during their political engagement. What an impression that would make on voters. Or perhaps they are precisely afraid of that impression, so they present us with photos that have absolutely nothing to do with politics and the public sphere.

How much more convincing would it be if they presented their fiery speech against increasing salaries at various levels of government on their Facebook profile wall.

How much stronger a message would be sent to citizens if, instead of photos of a bizarre nature, we saw photos that speak about the activities of an individual and his party regarding a delicate political issue.

But what am I actually talking about? What public and private. What line between family life and public engagement that brings responsibility, but also considerable income.

It is more important to read news about a private gathering in a very rich weekend house than about some new agreement that will solve one of the million problems in BiH. A political farm is better than the British parliament.

There is everything on the farm, while in the British parliament everything is sterile and everything is known. And it implies responsibility. Therefore, just as we are showered with various reality farms, let us be showered with photos from various family-political farms, and let both of them grin in our faces.