Why is the story of 'Dayton 2' a deception aimed at preventing the adoption of a civic, democratic Constitution of BiH?

By: Rasim Belko

The increasingly frequent calls by certain political circles for the so-called “Dayton 2” are not a result of a sincere intention to modernize Bosnia and Herzegovina and adapt it to modern democratic standards. On the contrary, it is a political deception and conscious manipulation aimed at blocking the adoption of a completely new, European, and civic constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Instead of real reforms, it offers the idea of “repairs” to a document that emerged as a peace agreement after aggression and war, not as a long-term constitutional foundation for a modern state.

The Dayton Constitution was not created as a result of a democratic process, but as a necessary formula to stop the war in 1995. It contained mechanisms that were needed at that moment, military balance, ethnic guarantees, and political mechanisms against the dominance of one nation. However, it is a constitution made for stabilizing a wartime situation, not for developing an efficient and modern state.

American and European officials have repeatedly stated clearly that Bosnia and Herzegovina, with its existing constitution, cannot join the European Union because it is incompatible with the European acquis communautaire, democratic standards, and the functionality that the EU requires. If Europe says that Dayton is not a European constitution, then it is clear that improving that constitution will not lead to a European BiH.

The key intention of those advocating for “Dayton 2” is to not only preserve the existing ethnic and divided character of the constitutional system but to further formalize it. Such an approach would maintain the blockade on transitioning to the civic principle, institutions would remain hostages to ethnic vetoes, and the policy of territorial and national exclusivity would continue.

In other words, “Dayton 2” would be an extension of the logic of “three constituent peoples,” not the logic of citizens, equal rights, and a modern state. It is not a European model; it is a post-war necessity that is being attempted to be turned into a permanent state.

The story of “Dayton as the beginning of BiH” also has another political goal: relativizing and denying the very fact that Bosnia and Herzegovina existed as an internationally recognized state even before the signing of the Dayton Agreement. This aims to create a narrative that BiH was created only in November 1995 and that its very existence is conditional on the agreement of great powers and the will of the entities.

This is classic political manipulation.

The goal of the “Dayton 2” narrative is an attempt to make BiH dependent on constant negotiations and concessions to ethnic centers of power, thereby blocking its political development and European perspective.

Why should modernization start with a new constitution? If the goal is to join the European Union, then it is not logical to repair a constitution that the EU considers unacceptable. The real question is why should we repair a constitution that is part of a peace agreement instead of adopting a modern constitution for a democratic state?

A new constitution would enable efficient institutions that cannot be blocked by the will of individuals or parties, European mechanisms for protecting minorities without ethnic counting, a clear division of competencies and responsibilities, and the functionality required for EU integration.

In other words, a modern constitution means moving from the logic of a ceasefire to the logic of progress.

Advocating for “Dayton 2” is not reform; it is a political strategy to preserve the existing state and prevent the true democratization of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The story of a new Dayton serves as a smokescreen for the continuation of ethnic divisions, the challenging of BiH's historical identity, and the postponement of its European path.

If the goal is a modern, functional, and European state, then the solution is not cosmetic adjustments to a peace agreement, but the adoption of a completely new, civic constitution, like all modern European countries have.