Parties under heavy pressure: Covic will block the state and prevent elections 2018

By: Edina Latif

As HDZ BiH leader and president of HNS, Dragan Covic, is doing his utmost to get BiH on the road to Europe, as well as to acknowledge and implement the verdicts of the Constitutional court, how come that three verdicts of the European court for human rights are awaiting their implementation (Sejdic – Finci, Ilijaz Pilav, Azra Zornic), and two verdicts of the Constitutional court BiH – one concerning the City of Mostar and the other one appealed for by Zeljko Komsic at the time he was the presidency member.

Over the past months, HDZ and Covic have been exerting immense pressure to the degree of threat that, unless the verdict for Bozo Ljubic is implemented (concerning the selection of delegates for the House of Peoples) and until Electoral law is changed in that part, they will block the state i.e. there will be no elections in 2018. Whether he will reach for Croat self-rule as his predecessor Ante Jelavic, Covic has not indicated yet.

Legislative solutions as the basis for filling the House of People of FBiH, as determined by the Constitutional court BiH on the basis of Bozo Ljubic's appeal, are contrary to the BH Constitution.

In practice, it means that the cantons will no longer have the opportunity to select one representative from each of the three constituent peoples for the House of Peoples of FBiH.

Furthermore, in practice it means that a Croat from Gorazde will not stand a chance to get elected by cantonal assembly for delegate on the House of Peoples even though he is Croat with sufficient number of votes – as he is not as valuable as a Croat from Grude or Siroki.

Although Covic is trying hard to present his actions as a campaign against inequality for Croats in relation to the other two constituent peoples, what he is actually doing is creating inequality and discrimination among the Croats.

Unless the Electoral law of BiH is changed, election of president and vice president of FBiH will be blocked, as well as delegate proposals from the federal House of Peoples for the House of Peoples BiH.

It would only be politically correct, and also a proof that he stands for European values, if Covic put pressure on political parties in relation to the Sejdic – Finci case, so that Others can have not only passive but also an active electoral right.  

It would be also politically correct if Covic lobbied through his friend Milorad Dodik for Bosniaks, Croats and Others (verdict Ilijaz Pilav) from the RS to be able to run for the presidency, and for all those who are not constituents to run for executive power (Azra Zornic).  

The decision about part of Electoral law of BiH relating to Mostar is one of the best known decisions of the Constitutional Court BiH. As this decisions has not been implemented as yet, Mostar has been without city government for years, which directly affects living of its citizens, making the city on Neretva a rather complex 'case'.

There is also the decision of the Constitutional court based on Zeljko Komsic's appeal which enables BH citizens who do not belong to one of the constituent peoples to be elected for entity presidents or vice presidents.

In practice, it would mean that in the RS, the position of president would not be reserved exclusively for Serb candidates as was the case in the last two decades.

It is only when Covic and HDZ BiH start implementing these 5 (3 international and 2 domestic verdicts) that we can talk about their intents to be 'bearers of European values'.

Otherwise, he would be only a bearer and advocate for his own values who wants to establish the third entity through floating electoral units, and once more the position of presidency member for himself.

One of the key questions that Covic and HDZ BiH should answer is: who in this country is accredited to issue certificate for 'genuine Croats'?!

We also wonder how come that as the promoter of European values, the advocate of equality and a legalist, Covic has not implemented the verdict of the Constitutional court by which the term 'zupanija' is considered unconstitutional?