All political parties in BiH must understand that defending parliamentary sovereignty is defending political freedom and the rule of law!

By: Rasim Belko

When High Representative Christian Schmidt prescribes criminal liability for non-implementation of his own decisions in July 2023, it is clear that we are no longer talking about "technical supervision" over post-Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina – but about the systemic undermining of domestic democracy. The introduction of Article 203a into the Criminal Code of BiH, and additional amendments to Article 239, are not just legal violence – they are a political message: “You don’t have to agree. Just obey”.

However, the question that political parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina must ask themselves is not whether they support Schmidt (OHR) or not. The question is – do they support a principle where political disagreements are criminally punished, where parliaments become technical executors of a foreign diplomat’s will, and where laws are made by decree, not dialogue?

It would be wrong to view Schmidt’s or earlier interventions through a one-dimensional prism – as a legal punishment against one politician. Because if today Milorad Dodik can be prosecuted for political disobedience towards the High Representative, why could tomorrow a minister from SDP, SDA, a delegate from HDZ, an opposition member from the Party for BiH, or an independent MP who decides to ignore some future OHR decision be prosecuted?

Article 203a opens space for institutional selectivity, and closes space for democratic autonomy. In legal states, politicians are accountable to voters – not to officials with Bonn powers.

Voters elect – Schmidt decides?

Political parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina spend tens of millions of marks on campaigns. Candidates visit villages and cities, expose themselves to debates, media, the public – only to find, in the end, that the legislative system can be simply bypassed with a single sentence in a High Representative’s decision. If Schmidt makes the law, and the parliament must adopt it “without amendments”, then let that be clearly stated – so we don’t even bother pretending to be a parliamentary democracy anymore.

The European Union is defined by the rule of law, institutional dialogue, and political accountability. In Brussels, ministers are dismissed due to suspicions of nepotism. And here we have a law that punishes political disagreement – and no one asks anymore if that is normal.

Is such a law even compatible with the European legal acquis? If not, what does the fact that it still exists tell us – and that judges must interpret it under political pressure?

Let’s imagine it this way: in democratic countries, laws are written in parliaments. In colonies – they arrive by mail from the office. Parties must decide which category they want to belong to. If they are ready to give up the right to legislative debate, modification, and even rejection of imposed solutions – let them say so and show it to their voters.

And if they are not, then it is time for a clear institutional “NO” to the further erosion of the sovereignty of the legislative body of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Schmidt’s decisions from October 2022 and April 2023 are not the only examples of targeted action that seriously undermine the position of Bosniaks as a constituent people and democracy as a whole. We have seen patterns of political favoritism, avoidance of real constitutional progress, and persistent blocking of the civilian aspect of the Peace Agreement – which is, ironically, the only true mandate of the High Representative.

Is it even necessary to remind that more than 30 years have passed, and we have not implemented the civilian part of Dayton? Instead of implementing peace, the OHR today acts as a guardian of the status quo. And the status quo does not suit the EU or NATO ambitions of this country. It does not suit the citizens. It does not suit the peoples. It only suits those who turn political immutability into capital.

A law that sanctions disobedience is not a problem of one people, entity, or political option. It is a problem of the entire system. Because a system in which politicians are not allowed to test the law with disagreement, but must blindly follow it – is not a system of the rule of law. It is a system of rule by decree.

Right now, every political party – regardless of whether it comes from Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Mostar, or Tuzla – has not only a political opportunity, but also a democratic obligation to show responsibility and capacity to act in accordance with the laws of its own country, and not according to the will of a foreign diplomat.

Decisions and laws that shape the political order must be the result of domestic institutions, procedures, and responsibilities – not a pre-written text placed before parliament without the right to amendment. This is not political courage, it is institutional necessity.

Therefore, it is time for parties to stop calculating what benefits them individually in the short term, and recognize that no one gains anything in the long run if the legislative power remains a hostage of an office authority. Parliamentary sovereignty is not an ethnic issue, nor a matter of majority or opposition – it is the foundation of any serious political system.

The High Representative was supposed to be a temporary supervisor, not a permanent tutor. He was supposed to help, not rule. If BiH truly wants to be a European country, it cannot allow its most important laws and norms to be prescribed by an official without democratic legitimacy. Especially not one who openly denies parliament the right to decide.

There is no European BiH without domestic political will. There is no stability without internal agreement. There is no democracy if disagreement becomes a criminal offense.

Therefore, it is time for political parties – both government and opposition – to demand the repeal of Article 203a. Not because of Dodik. For all of us, for the country and its citizens.

Because, let’s remember the protests after Schmidt’s post-election decrees, and let it be clear to us that under the current Criminal Code of BiH with Schmidt’s amendments, the organizers and participants would be committing a criminal offense. And that is a darkness that democratic societies have no right to, because otherwise the state becomes a vilayet, and we become subjects of some king, ruler, who in our case is called the international community and the OHR!