The People Will Decide?

The parliament of Bosnia's Serb-dominated entity adopted a new law on referendum and civic initiatives this week, and that has become one of the hottest political issues in already heavily divided Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Adoption of the law provoked strong reactions both within the country and abroad. All Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) political leaders condemned the law, claiming that its true intention is “to break Bosnia apart”. The United States embassy in Sarajevo issued a statement, saying it would consider “provocative any referendum that threatens the stability, sovereignty or territorial integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina."

The law regulates technical issues, such as the manner in which a referendum can be called and voting procedures. For outsiders, it could be a surprise that introducing a mechanism of direct democracy meant to deal with controversial issues on the basis of popular will can become controversial per se.

In fact, the “Bosnian story” started with one referendum. It was in the early 1990 when Bosniaks and Croats outvoted Serbs and decided on independence from the former Yugoslavia. The war of 1992-1995 started immediately after the referendum and ended with the current constitutional set-up of two semi-independent entities, the Serb Republic and the Muslim-Croat federation, linked by a weak central government.

Advocates of the referendum in theory argue that certain decisions are best taken out of the hands of representatives and determined directly by the people. Critics, on the other side, claim that direct democracy might lead to a “terror of the majority”.

We can distinguish between two main types of direct democracy, depending on who has the right to initiate a popular vote. The “top-down” approach is when a single official (president, prime minister) or a single body (parliament, government) decides to call a referendum on a given issue. The “bottom-up” approach enables popular initiatives to put on the political agenda issues which have been ignored or not adequately addressed by the institutions of representative democracy. The adopted law envisioned both approaches and thus provides a space for the realization of Serb’s Prime Minister Dodik threats of secession.

A referendum on communal issues, such as, for example, construction of a nuclear plant in the neighborhood would most certainly be seen as “widening democracy,” while a referendum on secession is seen as an abuse of democracy.

And indeed in divided societies prospects of direct democracy, use or abuse, depend exactly on the subject of the referenda and on who proposes the bill.

While those who warn of abuse might be right since widening democracy is definitely not Dodik’s preference, the more balanced analysis of the case indicates yet another kind of political manipulation. Namely, faced with strong corruption allegations and eroded support due to unfulfilled promises of economic prosperity, Dodik has nothing else to offer in an election year than a dream of sovereignty. That’s probably why Serb opposition parties voted against the law.