IT'S EASIER WITH THEM Krešić Praises the Trojka, HDZ Homogenizes Croats and Builds a Monopoly!

By: Amina Čorbo-Zećo

Although it is still unknown who will be the candidate of the HDZ BiH for the member of the Presidency of BiH, an analysis of media close to this party clearly shows that the HDZ and Dragan Čović, under the guise of “analytical” texts, actually want to mobilize voters and homogenize the political space under their wing.

A text published today in Večernji list provides a clear insight into how the HDZ perceives and shapes the political space of Croats in BiH. Although it formally uses the language of “unity” and “Croatian freedom,” the content clearly shows a strong inclination towards the HDZ and Dragan Čović, while political opponents, including the opposition “Pětorka” and candidate Slaven Kovačević, are portrayed as a threat.

First, the text openly normalizes political trading and the division of functions, using terms such as “marketplace,” “shareholding model,” and “cakes.” Instead of presenting the political process through democratic pluralism, it is reduced to a mathematical distribution of positions and percentages of votes. This transforms voter trust into a tool for strategic calculation, rather than a legitimate basis for political representation.

Second, the author admits that the HDZ's cooperation with the so-called Trojka has brought “beneficial” effects, primarily facilitating decision-making and reducing tensions in relations between Croats and Bosniaks. Although this is presented as a positive aspect, the problem is that success is measured solely through the prism of the HDZ's interests, not broader societal interests. Politics without resistance is presented as an ideal, which limits democratic confrontation and pluralism.

Third, the text constructs Slaven Kovačević as a latent danger and a project of Greater Bosniak hegemony, thereby dehumanizing the individual and turning him into a symbol of alleged threat. Such rhetoric anticipates a legitimate electoral outcome and stigmatizes any result that does not favor the HDZ, further consolidating ethnic divisions and reducing space for political pluralism.

Fourth, the insistence on “legitimate representation” in the text actually means the HDZ's monopoly over the Croatian political space. The opposition “Pětorka” is mentioned, but only to implicitly convey that its candidates have no right to realistically compete. Pluralism within the Croatian body is delegitimized in advance.

In short, the issue is not that the HDZ wants to achieve its political goals, nor that there is a fear of being outvoted. The issue is that the political process is presented through fear, hegemony, and ethnic monopoly. The text admits that politics is “easier” when the HDZ controls it, but dramatizes every other scenario. Instead of promoting open discussion and pluralism, the author chooses a strategy of political mobilization and trading, whereby the legitimacy of voters and elections is reduced to party mathematics.

It is no coincidence that the author is Zoran Krešić, who praises the Trojka when it suits him; that is precisely why it is important to critically follow such politics. What Krešić praises may serve the HDZ, but it weakens the state of BiH and the democratic processes within it in the long run.