Bosnia Finally Gets Permanent Electoral Legislation

A Ticket to the Council of Europe

AIM Sarajevo, Aug. 23, 2001

The House of Representatives of the Bosnia-Herzegovina Parliament has passed a permanent electoral bill. The law received supported from a general majority in the house, but also got majority support when MPs voted by entity -- in addition to the parties from the Muslim-Croat Federation that are part of the Democratic Alliance for Change, the law was supported by representatives from Republika Srpska as well: the Party of Democratic Progress of Mladen Ivanic, the Party of Independent Social Democrats of Milorad Dodik and the RS Socialist Party of Zivko Radisic. Representatives of the Serb Democratic Party and the Croatian Democratic Union boycotted the vote, and the Party of Democratic Action voted in favor, allegedly so that it would not be "the same as the Serb Democrats and the Croatian Democratic Union."

The new electoral law, some say, is virtually identical to the one recently rejected. Others, however, claim that there are "three new and crucial provisions." The first one is that the election of deputies to the House of Peoples, according to transitional provisions of the law, will be defined after the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Constitution is brought into accord with Constitutional Court ruling that all of the three peoples in Bosnia and Herezegovina are constituent in all parts of the country. Until then, deputies will be elected in accordance with the Bosnian Constitution. The provisions of the previous bill simply said that "they will be amended and changed later." According to the currently valid constitutional provisions, of 15 delegates to this House 10, exclusively Croats or Bosniaks, are appointed by the Muslim-Croat Federation's parliament, and the remaining 5, exclusively Serbs, by the Republika Srpska Assembly. Constitutional commissions appointed by High Representative Wolfgang Petritsch are working to implement the Constitutional Court's recent ruling affecting the position of the three Bosnian nations. The other provision is that refugees and displaced people can only vote in their place of residence as registered in the latest census in 1991, which practically means that the P-2 form (enabling them to vote in their temporary places of residence as if it were their permanent residence, which practically means recognition of ethnic cleansing) will be abolished, and which was the basic reason why the Party of Democratic Action backed the law. The third, according to which no one living on property belonging to someone else in violation of a valid ruling of a court or an administrative body that that property should be restored to its rightful owner, may vote in his/her current place of residence. Such persons can register to vote only in the municipality in which they held permanent residence at the time of the 1991 census. Although this decision is expected to affect some 300,000 people, the previous bill was even stricter: no one living on somebody else's property was allowed to run for office. For someone to be excluded from the elections process, it was enough for somebody to report a candidate as inhabiting someone else's property.

The new electoral law took provisions on electing members of the Bosnian Presidency (the one the Party of Democratic Action disliked the most) back to square one, or to Article 5.1 of the Bosnian Constitution, according to which voters registered in the Muslim-Croat Federation may elect either a Croat or a Bosniak Presidency member, and in RS only a Serb member. In regard to this, the deputy speaker of the Bosnian Parliament's House of Peoples, Sejfudin Tokic, told AIM that the Bosnian government had received firm assurances from the Council of Europe that the first condition Bosnia will have to meet after being admitted to this organization is to change this provision (regardless of the fact that it involves an executive body), which means amending the Bosnian Constitution!

At the House of Representatives session at which the law was passed, many objected to the fact that the bill was even placed on the agenda, because its wording was being harmonized by the Bosnian Council of Ministers almost until the session began and many representatives had not had a chance to even read it. "Fast readers could," said one official of the Council of Ministers. Unable to read the bill, a Party of Democratic Action representative abstained instead of voting in favor!

Although the passage of the bill appeared to have gone smoothly, it still prompted some harsh exchanges. In addition to protests that it should not have been offered for debate and adoption fresh from the press, there were numerous direct condemnations by the Serb Democratic Party and the Croatian Democratic Union. MPs from these parties said the bill aimed to "revise the Dayton agreement," that "it endangers Republika Srpska," and "turns a blind eye to the law." The very nature of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was even questioned. At the end the Serb Democrats whip, Mirko Banjac, said: "You have a majority, do what you please, let's just end this farce as soon as possible." But only a day after it was passed, the media in Republika Srpska carried reactions from the Serb Democrats' according to which cooperation should be broken off with Mladen Ivanic, the RS premier and head of the Party of Democratic Progress (their coalition partner in the RS government), because it backed Democratic Alliance for Change and the bill.

There were numerous reactions from parties in the Muslim-Croat Federation as well, most of which welcomed the law, except for the Bosnian Party, which considers it a "betrayal of Bosnia and Herzegovina," or the Republican Party, which "would prefer to have the Constitution harmonized with the Constitutional Court's decision, and only then a new law adopted." On the other hand, it is interesting to note that many non-government organizations which earlier played a major role in lobbying for or against various versions of the bill are no longer showing any serious interest in it. Several representatives contacted by AIM on the issue only said they were aware that the law was passed, but not which version (!?).

When we stressed that Party of Democratic Action representatives voted in favor, a senior party official, until yesterday the staunchest opponent of the law, said: "I don't know what is so strange about this; this was not a defensive position, the law is in accordance with the Constitution and it contains nothing that the Constitution does not already say." Let us recall that it was the Party of Democratic Action that used to argue that such a manner of electing Presidency members was in violation of the General Declaration on Human Rights, and that as soon as Bosnia was admitted in the Council of Europe it would find itself before the European Court because of it. It is obvious, therefore, that the international community's tactic in Bosnia and Herzegovina, also popularly known as "arm twisting," or, to put it in diplomatic terms, convincing behind closed doors, has produced results. Only a day before the parliament session and debate on the electoral bill, Sonja Moser-Starac, Council of Europe special rapporteur in Bosnia-Herzegovina, said in an interview that MPs should adopt the bill, even if incomplete. At that point she had information that the parties from the Alliance for Change had harmonized 80 percent of the bill and that even that should be adopted, and then she would do everything in her power to have Bosnia admitted to the Council in the first days of September. Sonja Moser was the first international community representative to publicly say several months ago that the initial OSCE proposal had "three crucial mistakes fostering separation on an ethnic basis" (the election of the Presidency members, of representatives to the House of Peoples, and voting by displaced persons in their places of temporary residence). In the interview, she even said she was surprised that the OSCE and the OHR had urged MPs as early as Aug. 3 to pass the bill without altering these three points, as required by the Constitutional Court ruling.

But the Alliance for Change, and primarily its member, the Party of Democratic Action, was not only under fire from the international community, but from the Bosnian public as well. Namely, Bosnian next elections could be held as early as next year.

The OSCE and OHR have announced they will not organize them, and that the Bosnian government will have to adopt electoral legislation before September, not only for the sake of Bosnia's admittance to the Council of Europe, but to ensure sufficient time to organize the vote on its own. When after such advice the Alliance for Change showed no intention of accepting the electoral bill, a part of the public accused the Alliance of deliberately obstructing the bill to postpone elections it feared it would lose. The outcome of next year's elections is really hard to predict at this point. In any case, it is clear that given the opposition to the bill from the Serb Democratic Party and the Croatian Democratic Union, that the Party of Democratic Action and other "friendly" parties, under such strong international pressure, would probably consent to voting in favor of other solutions, on condition the Serb Democrats and the Croatian Democratic Union are against. The OSCE and OHR welcomed the passage of the bill, and made it clear they were expecting the House of Peoples to also adopt it, announcing counseling and technical assistance in properly organizing elections due by October 2002.

Thus the Bosnian train has finally departed for Europe, although Sonja Moser disagrees with the fact that from 1997 to this day nothing has been done to establish respect of human rights, which is of the highest importance in admittance in the Council of Europe. It is obvious that Bosnia's "small faults" are being overlooked for yet another reason -- recently a senior Council of Europe official said that it is inconceivable for Yugoslavia to be admitted before Bosnia-Herzegovina, but that this could easily happen, given political changes there. Is this the ticket that opens the door to the Council of Europe, or was the electoral law what was actually at stake?

Rubina Cengic

(AIM)