Of veto players and entity-voting: institutional gridlock in the Bosnian reform process

Author:

Bahtić-Kunrath Birgit

Abstract

Entity-voting in the Bosnian Parliamentary Assembly is a veto mechanism in Bosnia's consociational institutional setting and an important reason for the country's orientation towards the political status quo. An empirical analysis of the number and nature of adopted and rejected draft laws during the legislative period 2006–2010, embedded in George Tsebelis's veto player approach, leads to the conclusion that the veto players in the parliament – either delegates from Republika Srpska or delegates from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina – have pushed the consociational system of checks and balances to its extremes. Entity-voting enables the veto players to “hijack” the parliament for their exclusionary ethnic interests and discourages cooperation and compromise between the veto players. Significant legislation, which in the present article is defined as legislation relevant for the European Partnership, faces severe obstacles to getting passed. In the light of these findings, the article discusses three policy implications: institutional redesign, a change of the actors, and an active role of the European Union for providing the actors with a realistically achievable goal which they equally share. This should reset the current calculus of self-interest and encourage cooperation between the veto players.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

Political Science and International Relations,History,Geography, Planning and Development

Reference75 articles.

1. As already mentioned, domestic legislation can also certainly be “significant” in terms of importance. Unfortunately, the present analysis cannot distinguish “significant” from “non-significant” domestic legislation or create a hierarchy of importance, because the development of the required objective decision rule is beyond its scope. We therefore cannot assess if “significant” domestic legislation failed more or less frequently than bills which could be considered as less important.

2. Kasapović calls Bosnia an “asymmetrical confederation” (4), Bose “confederal in character” (20), and Carl Bildt, the country's first High Representative, the “most decentralized state in the world” (qtd. in Belloni, “State Building” 44).

3. In the HoP, the vital interest veto was invoked only four times in 11 years (Trnka 13). Vital interest has one decisive disadvantage, compared to entity-voting: It does not stop the legislation process for good. Whenever vital interest is invoked, the HoP has to set up a commission to decide on its justified invocation; if there is no agreement in that commission, the Constitutional Court will rule if the vital interest of the complaining ethnicity was indeed threatened (Bosnia and Herzegovina, “Rules of Procedure House of Peoples” Art. 161, Art. 162; Trnka 13). Between 2006 and 2010, vital interest was deployed only once, by the Bosniak caucus in May 2008, when the house adopted a non-binding resolution asking the CoM to submit legislation that would allow the creation of a Croat public broadcaster. However, the Constitutional Court decided that vital interest had not been violated, which probably did not encourage a more frequent use of the veto (Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina).

4. Annex X of the Dayton Peace Agreement establishes the presence of a High Representative (since 2002 also EU Special Representative). The High Representative watches over the adherence to the Dayton Agreement by the former war parties. To carry out this task, he has large competencies (“Bonn Powers”) that entitle him to actively intervene in Bosnian politics through “Decisions,” if he considers the Agreement as being endangered (Bosnia and Herzegovina, “The General Framework Agreement” Annex X; Chandler 157).

5. These are just estimates. Until today no official numbers exist on the post-war ethnic composition of Bosnia. The last census was held in 1991, when Bosnia was still part of Yugoslavia. Today, approximately 7% of the total population belong to minorities like Jews, Roma, or are offspring of mixed marriages. They are subsumed under the term “Others” and can run for public office in the state government and the House of Representatives – but not for the three-fold Presidency and the House of Peoples. This constitutional arrangement was rejected by the European Court of Human Rights in December 2009 as being discriminatory (European Court of Human Rights), urging Bosnia to carry out a respective constitutional reform, which so far has been stalled.

Cited by 23 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. A three-legged race: assessing the functionality of consociational power-sharing with cabinet conflict-resolution data from Belgium (1979–2006);Acta Politica;2024-02-06

2. What Do We Know about Power Sharing after 50 Years?;Government and Opposition;2022-08-02

3. Consociationalism and Peace After Conflict;The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies;2022

4. The Emergence of Complex Federal Political Systems in the Western Balkans;Emerging Federal Structures in the Post-Cold War Era;2022

5. Consociationalism and Peace After Conflict;The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies;2021

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3