The Iran Case: Will politicians in Sarajevo ever stop being cowards?!

(Patria) - Cowardice and opportunism are dominant features of most political actors on the pro-Bosnian scene. This unpleasant fact cannot be ignored, especially since Bosniak-Bosnian politics has been completely sidelined in recent years, and is almost entirely devoid of vitality.

There is hardly anything attractive in the ideology of parties based in Sarajevo. Their nationalism and anti-nationalism are equally politically asexual. There is nothing particularly attractive in the dominant discourse of these parties. It mostly relies on a kind of centrism, which is a haven for mediocrities, and not only that, but a safe harbor for party bureaucrats who are not willing at any moment to do anything for the collective they represent, if it involves taking a certain risk to their personal comfort or party position.

An entire host of deputies and officials from Sarajevo parties are just going through the motions in their mandates, without any particular desire to engage in any political, let alone ideological, discussion.

However, in recent years, the Democratic Front has been the, and almost the only, political party that has recognized the need and found ways to move beyond the predetermined coordinates of daily politics, which are full of boredom, and to offer citizens an ideological struggle.

Yes, it is true that the DF has been fighting a battle for a decade that is not only political but also ideological in nature, a battle against changes to the Election Law as desired by the HDZ, which falls under the register of ideological-political struggle between social forces that see BiH as an ethnically or civically organized country – it is true, therefore, that the DF has long been on the battlefield of ideological conflicts, perhaps since the moment Željko Komšić left that party due to the SDP accepting unequal vote value and formed the DF, but in recent years the DF has proven to be almost the only political organization willing to engage in ideological debate.

When it was necessary to oppose the suspension of the Constitution, the deepening of ethnic discrimination and the strengthening of the ethnic character of the Constitution at the expense of the civic one, when it was necessary to oppose the imposition of power by foreigners, the loudest and most consistent in this was the DF.

When it was necessary to raise a voice against the growing Islamophobia in Europe, which has always and as a rule reflected on Bosnia and Herzegovina, the loudest in this were not the formally national parties (historically of the Muslim circle), the most consistent in this were Komšić and the DF.

Thus, Komšić repeatedly drew the attention of European officials to the disastrous nature of the Islamophobic campaign against Bosniak Muslims. One such example was Komšić's intervention with French President Emmanuel Macron, which was met with hostility in Sarajevo among fake pro-civic circles and called diplomatic rudeness.

The same circles bowed their heads before Milorad Dodik, who cursed genocide in their faces, while on the other hand, Komšić interrupted meetings and interviews where interlocutors tried to deny the genocide in Srebrenica.

Komšić also interrupted, that is, prevented, a meeting with Sergey Lavrov because dignity dictated that such a meeting be postponed, given that Lavrov had insulted the flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina the day before during a meeting with Milorad Dodik. Despite this, at the moment Komšić opposed the interventions of former US Ambassador to BiH Michael Murphy at the United Nations, he was accused of pro-Russian activities.

Komšić's and DF's ideological and political opponents have thus completed a full, complete, and almost perfect circle in which the DF and Komšić, within a year or a little more, were both people who were spoiling relations with Russia and people who were distancing us from the United States of America.

Of course, none of that was true, however, what is more important than that is that the rigidity and fear of expressing a political stance is finally giving way. This is also the case with the Resolution by which Gulf countries condemn Iran's alleged attack on them.

While the Bosniak representation, embodied by Bećirović, Konaković, and Lagumdžija, trembles before the United Arab Emirates and the United States, for whom the question of how BiH will declare itself at the United Nations regarding some particularly meaningless Resolution for them is not even a thousandth priority, Komšić, on the other hand, is the only one who mustered the strength, courage, and integrity to say that BiH has no benefit from interfering in the conflict in the Middle East.

To act as Komšić did, you must believe in something in the political life entrusted to you by the citizens. Komšić and the Democratic Front may never gain majority support from the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina for their views, but they will clearly not apologize for their views being unpopular.

What Bosnian-Herzegovinian politics currently lacks is not just unpopular views. A political organization cannot live on unpopular views. The problem lies in the belief that one can live without them. And that is also true. One can live without honor, but it is meaningless, just as it is without a homeland.

(M.T.)