The OSCE Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Testing the limits of ownership

Abstract

This article explores the debate on local ownership in Bosnia and Herzegovina1 by examining the limits of international community support for reform in a divided political environment in which decision-makers and politicians have little to no interest in reform themselves. After a short review of the key issues and arguments regarding ownership in BiH, the example of education reform is presented to demonstrate the role of the OSCE as an external actor in this reform sector, and the lack of any reform progress in this field in the absence of external pressure. The article closes with reflections on whether or not external organizations can make any systemic-level impact in such a hostile reform environment, and whether the OSCE can still play a constructive role in Bosnia.

Keywords:

• OSCE mission
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• ownership

Notes

Following the common use in the academic literature, Bosnia and Herzegovina will be shortened to “Bosnia” or “BiH”. This refers to the whole territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Secretary-General Biscevic of the Regional Cooperation Council (RCC) noted that he feared the situation in BiH was at risk of becoming a “dormant frozen conflict”. The authors of this paper share the assessment that BiH can be considered as a “frozen conflict” because the major roots of the war in the first half of the 1990s have not been addressed by the Dayton Peace Agreement or the state-building project that followed. However, the frozen conflict in BiH should be distinguished from other “frozen conflicts” such as Transdnistria or Northern Cyprus, since BiH is de facto and de jure one country (albeit ethnically divided) and has joint governmental institutions, which represent the country as a whole and include politicians from the three major ethnic groups, Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs.

In 2010 NATO granted BiH a Membership Action Plan (MAP) to assist the country in meeting terms for NATO membership.

The gradual expansion of Mission activities mirrors trends in development and democratization more generally. Thomas Carothers (1999) traces the development of US development assistance from the 1960s, pointing out how it in many ways mirrors the evolution in thinking about democratization strategies in the 1980s and 1990s.

For example, if a country wishes to be in the Council of Europe, or NATO, it must meet certain terms and conditions that may not be palatable, but are worth the cost in the bigger picture.

On a wider discussion of different forms of ownership and their advantages and disadvantages (see Scheye and Peake 2005).

Petritsch, however, combined the opposing elements of heavy international intervention in the political processes with a discussion about more autonomy, independence and responsibility of local Bosnian elites (Solioz 2003).

In 2006, “Regulations on Consultations in Legislative Drafting” were adopted by the Council of Ministers, and an analysis of the implementation of these regulations concluded that while this opens some doors to civil society, both government officials and NGOs are poorly informed about how to use this process (Bosna i Hercegovina, Ministarstvo Pravde 2010). There is a civic effort to increase opportunities for direct democracy being led by the organization “Dosta”.

In a sign of the changes that have occurred over the past decade, education as an issue is now quite common in OSCE programs, and openly noted on the Organization's web site along other priority areas, See OSCE official website (OSCE 2011).

See also a related Communiqué by the PIC Steering Board (“Communiqué” 2002).

For a wider discussion on obstruction by local elites in Bosnia (see Cousens 2002).

Following the PIC a working group comprised of the Council of Europe, EU and OSCE MBiH has been formed to consult and coordinate on an upcoming EU project related to school reconstruction. There is the potential for criteria to be established to ensure that EU funds go to schools exhibiting good practice in inclusion and integration.

The Annual EU Progress Report on BiH includes references to education, within the framework of economic and social rights and internal markets (education and research). However, the reviews are brief, and often do not reflect the reality on the ground. For example, the 2010 Progress Report said that the number of “two schools under one roof” had decreased, suggesting progress. In fact there has been no change since 2005. Further there are few hard requirements in the acquis related to the structure or content of educational structures, making less opportunity for simple reference to technical criteria or firm standards (Bosnia and Herzegovina 2010). The 2011 Progress Report of the EU also confirms this picture. It states that “Little Progress can be reported in the field of Education…Ethnic-based separation in public schools remains an issue of serious concern” (Bosnia and Herzegovina 2011).

The Mission also supports reform in education institutions and legislation, including work with school boards, education inspectors, school directors and bodies such as the Education Agency.

Peer to peer education and the training of trainers methodology is viewed as having a potential multiplier effect in an environment in which schools leaders regularly (often yearly) leave the school upon graduation, leaving potential capacity vacuums. One OSCE MBiH peer education effort focusing on strengthening student councils resulted in over 500 individual training workshops being held by student council peer trainers.

A second report looking at the scope of use of the new textbooks is forthcoming by the same author.

The 2010 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2010 EC Progress Report references the introduction of “a common, nine-year core curriculum” being introduced (p. 18). However, this is a bit misleading. The “common core curriculum” was developed through a process of pulling together all of the information being taught in the various curricula, and determining what they shared in common. It therefore does not include the bulk of the national subjects; nor did it constitute any newly developed and shared content. While commonality among the non-national subjects was aimed at enhancing potential mobility of students in schools across the country, leaving out the controversial identity subjects in effect continued to limit any potential mobility.

See for example the regional history reform initiative sponsored by the Center for Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe, at http://www.cdsee.org.

While history textbooks are still far from perfect, the extent to which they have improved due to the decade-plus modernization effort is visible when one looks at the quality, content and methodology of other classroom subjects.

The extent to which religious communities have influence in public education was visible in the spring of 2011 when the newly installed Minister of Education in Sarajevo Canton sought changes to the religious instruction offered in schools – namely making them pass/fail and optional. The outcry by the Islamic Community was significant, and in fact the reform initiative put on hold (“Bosnian Muslim Leader Criticized” 2011).

This approach was developed by the Center for Studies on Inclusive Education (http://www.csie.org.uk) The Index was used in the United Kingdom, and has been translated into more than 25 languages.

The Federation curriculum was developed by a Federation working group with the intent that the curriculum would be applied to all schools in the entity. However, only Bosniak areas/schools are implementing this, while Croat schools use their own Croatian language curriculum.

The OSCE annual budget process is increasingly shaped by a logframe oriented “Performance Budget Program Review” process that has a strong bias towards the short-term, the quantifiable and the apolitical; needed difficult, political, long-term work can be difficult to place within such an approach.

This issue points to a wider discussion of state-building vs. democratization, which has been discussed by Linz and Stepan (1996) as well as by Ghani and Lockhart (2009) and by Francis Fukuyama (2005), who all argue that “stateness” has to come before any form of democratization can be successful.

For example, the former Head of Mission Gary Robbins in August noted his concern about a comment by RS President Dodik that BiH is not a state, but a “state union” (echoing the words of the former relationship between Serbia and Montenegro before Montenegro held a referendum and declared independence), referencing BiH's Constitution and the Constitutional Court (“‘State union’ concept of Bosnia and Herzegovina has no legal basis, says Head of OSCE Mission”. OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina web site. Accessed August 11, 2011. http://www.osce.org/bih/81626).