Redesigning Dayton: Drawing Inspiration from Ohrid to Enhance Bosnia’s Governance
By Luca Guerzoni
The Balkans, a region long marked by its complex tapestry of ethnicities and histories, has witnessed some of the most challenging and protracted conflicts of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. In particular, Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Macedonia have found themselves to be at the convergence of multiple imperial claims. The overarching territorial and political struggles have contributed to sowing divisions, hate, and distrust amongst their peoples. The Bosnian War in the 1990s and the North Macedonian ethnic tensions and the resulting insurgency in 2001 stand out as emblematic of broader struggles that have shaped the region.
After the war in the 1990s, Bosnia was ushered into a fragile peace under the Dayton Accords, which sought to address deep-seated ethnic divisions and cease hostilities. On the other hand, North Macedonia, having faced its own ethnic tensions and an Albanian insurgency in 2001, found stability through the Ohrid Framework Agreement.
Both agreements were designed to resolve internal interethnic conflicts and create a semblance of stability. However, the outcomes have been mixed. Bosnia is struggling with a fragmented political system, governance dysfunctionality, and continued ethnic tensions. While North Macedonia has made strides in integrating its Albanian community into its Northwestern provinces, it continues to face challenges in fully implementing its agreement. Visiting Bosnia and North Macedonia this summer showed me the impacts of decades of ethnic segregation and hate among ethnic groups and pushed me to analyze the reconciliation process in the two countries. In this article, I will explore how the principles of the Ohrid Framework Agreement could offer valuable insights for revising and improving the Dayton Accords. By examining the successes and shortcomings of both agreements, I aim to identify strategies that could help Bosnia and Herzegovina overcome current governance challenges and move toward a more cohesive and functional state. As I delve into this comparison, I will highlight how lessons from the Ohrid Framework can serve as a blueprint for a renewed and more effective approach to peacebuilding and governance in Bosnia.
How Dayton Paralyzed Bosnia
The brutal war in Bosnia left over 100,000 dead, 2.2 million people displaced, and fueled resentments between the three main ethnic groups of Bosnia: Serbs, Muslim Bosnjaks, and Croats. Despite temporarily freezing the ongoing fighting in Bosnia, the Dayton Accords did not provide Bosnia with a functional government,strong institutions, and failed to support the efforts of reconciliation among the ethnic groups. The Accords established a power-sharing arrangements based on ethnic lines, creating a tripartite presidency and two autonomous entity, which are the Federation of Bosnia, inhabited by Catholic-Bosnian Croat and Muslim Bosniaks, and the Republika Srpska, inhabited by Bosnian Serbs. This system has entrenched ethnic divisions, leading to political fragmentation and paralysis. Emphasis of ethnic representation undermined the efforts of reconciliation and favored the politics of ethnic divisions, where leaders prioritize ethnic interests over national unity and often echoe nationalist claims and war time grievances. One of the main residual effects of this political system is the ethnic segregation in schools, local communities, and in public life. When visiting Republika Srpska this summer, I was shocked to learn that most of the local youths identify themselves as Serbs and not as Bosnians hold Serbian passports and not Bosnian passports, use the Serbian dinars and not the Bosnian marks, and many of them never been to the capital of Bosnia, Sarajevo. In addition to continuing the ethnic tensions in Bosnia, the Dayton Accords set a multilayered governance structure, including multiple levels of government and administrative bodies.
This structure has led to inefficiency, corruption and paralysis in decision making. It is estimated that nearly 50% of Bosnia’s GDP is spent in maintaining the massive bureaucratic and administrative apparatus. This inevitably has suffocated the private sectors and Bosnia's prospects of development. Dayton’s system of governance forced Bosnia, as a whole, to function only at the federal level, reconnecting the separate ethnic entities under the supervision of a German High Commissioner, Christian Schmidt. The High Commissioner holds the power of imposing laws and removing officials deemed obstructive to Dayton's framework. This position has been strongly criticized by many Bosnians for violating Bosnia’s sovereignty and democracy. The once praised Dayton Accords seem to keep Bosnia a hostage of ethno-criminal networks, which have benefited from the dysfunctionality of the central government and the weakness of the institutions that protect ethnic elites from accountability. These structural dysfunctionalities, the endemic corruption and the political paralysis remain to be the main obstacles to Bosnia’’s adhesion to the European Union. To further complicate the situation, several actors are becoming involved in financially and diplomatically supporting the different ethnic groups of Bosnia. Croatia and the EU have been supporting the Bosnian Croats, while Turkey has been supporting the Muslim Bosnjaks. Even far more foreign entities such as Russia and China have been supporting the Bosnian Serbs. The recent war in Ukraine sparked tensions in the Balkans, with many fearing the resumption of hostilities, especially after the Russian backed leader of Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, threatened to tear down Bosnia. Resuming instability in the Balkans could open up a new front within Europe that could weaken European readiness and cohesion in countering Russia in Ukraine.
Ohrid Framework Agreement in North Macedonia
The Ohrid Framework Agreement was signed in 2001 to put an end to the ethnic tensions between Muslim Albanians, mostly in the Western and Northwestern municipalities of the Republic, and Slavic Macedonians. The situation escalated in 2001 with the spillover of the Albanian insurgency from Kosovo into North Macedonia. The agreement was signed to avoid the failures of the Dayton accords under the motto ‘’there are no territorial solutions to ethnic issues’’. Ohrid’s aim was to achieve interethnic peace by encouraging the two main ethnic communities, Macedonians and Albanians, to resolve their own issues through compromise, at local and state level. The Ohrid Framework promoted decentralization by granting more local autonomy to municipalities with significant ethnic Albanian populations and increased a more equitable Albanian political representation and integration into the police and military. Ethnic Albanians were also integrated into political institutions and had their national symbols and languages recognized. All of these reforms were regulated by a loose structure that allowed flexibility in dealing with interethnic issues. In addition to ending the conflict, the Ohrid Framework Agreement immediately witnessed some key successes: the number of Albanians who think of North Macedonia as their country has increased exponentially since 2001 and the number of people who would only vote for a candidate of their ethnic group has drastically decreased. Some of the successes listed above I witnessed while visiting Skopje and Ohrid, where I noticed a higher-level of interethnic integration than in Bosnia. Despite these successes, the Ohrid Agreement’s loose structure could not handle the possibility of the resumption of the hostilities in neighboring Kosovo and the political manipulation of popular fears. Even 23 years after Ohrid, ethnic polarization remains a constant threat to the stability of the country. Additionally, many Macedonians share the fear of being politically marginalized, which builds upon the Macedonian historical experience of enrichment by neighboring nations.
How Ohrid can inspire Dayton
Visiting both Bosnia and North Macedonia showcased two different outcomes of peace agreements. While North Macedonia witnessed an increasingly vibrant interethnic dialogue, Bosnia remained stuck in the ethnic segregation and war-like mentality. Sarajevo is left with mostly Muslim Bosnjaks, while the Serbs have moved into East Sarajevo, located on the mountains overlooking the city. Mostar is also divided into two sides, with the Muslim Bosnjaks living on one side of the Neretva river and the Catholic Croats living on the other. The territory of the Republika Srpska, once very diverse, was left with a small percentage of Muslim Bosniaks. These differences between the two countries show how the flexibility of the Ohrid Framework can be very effective in place of Dayton’s shortcomings. Modifying the Dayton Accords by incorporating elements from the Ohrid Framework Agreement involves emphasizing decentralization, streamlining governance, enhancing political representation, and promoting national integration. Addressing these areas can help address the inefficiencies and ethnic divisions that have persisted under the Dayton framework. Adopting a more flexible, inclusive approach that incorporates lessons learned from Ohrid could contribute to a more functional and cohesive Bosnia and Herzegovina. A more decentralized governance in Bosnia would increase the powers and responsibilities of local governments in the country. This could be obtained by delegating more administrative functions to local municipalities to improve local responsiveness and reduce the central government's economic and political burden. Adjusting the political structure to ensure a more inclusive representation without solely relying on ethnic-based quotas and introducing electoral reforms could enhance representation for all citizens and reduce the dominance of ethnic parties. Forging a shared Bosnian national identity should be done by promoting educational programs, media campaigns and cultural initiatives emphasizing historical times of coexistence and a common Southern Slavic identity. These initiatives, in addition to ensuring that the rights of all ethnic groups are protected, will balance the ethnic representation with the efforts to foster a shared national identity. Moving the existing tripartite presidency model towards a more unified executive branch or implementing a more streamlined presidential system could enhance executive efficiency. Also, reducing the number of administrative layers and entities in BiH to streamline governance by consolidating some of the complex structures established by Dayton could be very beneficial. More lightened administrative and bureaucratic body includes less economic burden, more accountability and less chances of endemic corruption. Promoting a greater civic engagement and participation in political processes, both in the Federation of Bosnia and in the Republika Srpska, is a first step to encourage dialogue and collaboration between ethnic and political groups to build a more inclusive political structure. An interethnic dialogue in Bosnia will lead to greater effectiveness of the establishment and will bring more investors into the country and will make Bosnia closer to the adhesion to the European Union.
