Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the fall of Yugoslavia, many nations abandoned their communist alliances and ideologies, and flocked to Western alliances they believed would revitalize their suffering societies. The United States in particular saw this as an opportunity to expand its influence through democratization. It supported these nation’s efforts to democratize and incentivized these goals with NATO membership, a policy that still exists today. Unfortunately, the expansion of western political and military alliances is perceived as a threat by the new Russian state which has made efforts to limit their influence. This has resulted in a number of quasi-democratic states, teetering on the precipice of democracy, but consistently falling short of the mark. Much of the undemocratic influence these states experience is imbued by foreign nations attempting to advance their own political and military agendas.
One state that has suffered accutely from this fragmentation of ideologies is Bosnia and Herzegovina. Despite efforts to democratize, particularly to join NATO, they have struggled to politically unite. Bosnia has been categorized as a weak democracy since its inception in 1992. It has struggled to unify its vastly diverse society. To compensate for this variety, they established a tripartite presidency with two primary political parties to ensure equitable distribution of ideologies. While this approach appears democratic in the Dahlian sense, as it offers freedom to form organizations, freedom of expression and right for leaders to compete for support, it has actually allowed for certain groups to adopt anti-democratic policies and maintain legitimacy. In particular, the Serbian dominant, Russian backed, Republika Srpska, has continuously blocked Bosnian democratization. One of their primary objectives is to preclude Bosnia’s accession to NATO, a goal Russia shares as well. Under this leadership, they claim foreign influence is degrading Bosnian sovereignty and that joining the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program in 2006 and Membership Action Plan (MAP) in 2010 to reinforce military and democratic lapses within the country don’t serve Bosnian interests. Despite 70% of Bosnians wanting to join NATO, Republika Srpska has managed to maintain key policies regarding state military owned assets to deter accession. Unfortunately, freedom of religion and cultural expression, equality and access to voting, and accessibility to public office has ironically harmed Bosnia’s democracy. Despite Judith Shklar’s suggestions that to maintain democracy society must equally respect their political community and that inclusiveness is essential, Bosnia has allowed a tyranny of the minority to establish itself.
This minority has retained power through Serbian and Russian alliances to deter western military and political alignment. Rather than inclusion sparking a majority anxiety that leads to exclusion, as Charles Taylor would suggest, too much power has been given to the minority that propagates anti-democratic values. This inclusiveness has encouraged divisive, exclusionary policies. In addition to implementing policies that make international cooperation with western military forces impossible, a number of discriminatory and oppressive policies have been implemented to suppress democratic progress.
Russian influence extends through this Serbian leadership and through the Orthodox Church which projects Russian propaganda and anti-democratic messages. They promote anti LGBTQ+ messages, suppress voting and applaud genocidal actions. This directly limits the participation of all people in Bosnia. It limits the capacity for democracy in two ways: the government is prone to influence by leaders of foreign nations and it detracts liberal rights of its own citizens. It has also isolated portions of the population by claiming itself as a defender of Serbian territorial integrity. This boosts Russia’s popularity among Bosnian Serbs and puts pressure on Bosnia to maintain friendly relations with Moscow.
This relationship has caused Bosnia to become a victim of weaponized propaganda. Republika Srpska has legitimized many Russian positions regarding how Bosnia’s government should run. They have driven a wedge in society regarding western ideals that are difficult to overcome. This propaganda serves to demonize the goals other government actors and minorities in Bosnia aim to accomplish. This allows them to normalize violence against opposition and limit the consequences perpetrators might face. More than 237 war crime cases against 502 defendants were pending in Bosnia at the end of July, and there are 4,000 more suspects that have yet to reach the courts. Republika Sprksa has tried to limit a genocide denial law on its territory and they have refused to allocate funds to media sources they have deemed unfriendly to their goals. Pluralism, inclusiveness and representation have all been limited by one portion of the Bosnian government. What was meant to provide representation to one of the largest ethnic groups in a diverse nation has resulted in devastating weaponized propaganda, discrimination and violence.
Ari, your blog post about the impact of competing foreign interests on democratic progress, particularly in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was thorough and thought-provoking. The intricate dynamics you highlight shed light on the delicate balance between democratic ideal and competing global agendas, which can be studied in other aspiring democracies across the globe. Your portrayal of Bosnia’s struggle for democratization, hampered by the influence of Republika Srpska and Russian-backed agendas, exemplifies the complex challenges many nations face in their pursuit of democratic values. The tripartite presidency’s intentions to provide representation have unfortunately resulted in a tyranny of the minority.
Your inclusion of Judith Shklar’s perspective on the importance of inclusiveness and Charles Taylor’s notion of majority anxiety leading to exclusion added further depth to your analysis. The tension between inclusion and the potential for the majority to feel excluded resonates beyond the Bosnian context, although based on the evidence you provided, it is clear that a minority wields significant influence against the majority’s democratic aspirations. The intertwining of Russian influence, Serbian leadership, and the Orthodox Church in projecting anti-democratic messages paints a vivid picture of how external actors can manipulate and shape the political landscape of a nation. The weaponized propaganda, as you describe it, becomes a potent tool not only in limiting democratic progress but also in fostering discrimination and violence. Your use of specific examples, such as the suppression of voting, the promotion of anti-LGBTQ+ messages, and the normalization of violence against opposition, shows us readers the tangible consequences of these foreign influences on the daily lives of Bosnian citizens. In a contemporary context, examining cases of successful resistance to such manipulation or innovative strategies employed by civil society in other nations facing similar challenges could provide a more optimistic outlook or potential avenues for change.
In conclusion, your post raises crucial questions about the delicate balance between external interests and the pursuit of democracy. The Bosnian case serves as a poignant reminder of the challenges nations face in navigating their democratic trajectories amidst competing foreign influences.
Ari, This analysis is very incite fule and I feel it provides a comprehensive understanding of Bosnia’s complex political landscape. You manage to skillfully unravel the intricate layers of Bosnia’s struggle for democracy and the many hindrances in its way. This piece takes a deep dive into the historical nuances, capturing the essence of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s challenges. Incorporating political theories, such as Dahl’s and Taylor’s, adds depth and shows a solid understanding of course material. Critiquing the tripartite presidency system and its unintended consequences demonstrates a nuanced perspective. However, I feel as though your blog post lacks a mention of resistance movements within Bosnia protesting for liberal rights and fighting against the Ruso-Serbian minority that continues to perpetuate these issues.
Ari, This analysis is very insightful and I feel it provides a comprehensive understanding of Bosnia’s complex political landscape. You manage to skillfully unravel the intricate layers of Bosnia’s struggle for democracy and the many hindrances in its way. This piece takes a deep dive into the historical nuances, capturing the essence of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s challenges. Incorporating political theories, such as Dahl’s and Taylor’s, adds depth and shows a solid understanding of course material. Critiquing the tripartite presidency system and its unintended consequences demonstrates a nuanced perspective. However, I feel as though your blog post lacks a mention of resistance movements within Bosnia protesting for liberal rights and fighting against the Russo-Serbian minority that continues to perpetuate these issues.
Hi Ari,
This was an incredibly interesting analysis of the ways in which foreign influence can impact a country’s politics. You convincingly argue that Russian and Serbian influence in Bosnia’s government prevents the country from implementing many of the policies that the majority of the country wants. However, I’m curious to learn more about how exactly the minority has blocked Bosnian ascension to NATO. I do not doubt that a tyranny of the minority can exist especially in a weak democracy like Bosnia’s. However, although I admit I do not know much about the organization’s membership process, nor how domestic politics play a role in this process, if 70% of Bosnians want to join NATO then how has the other 30% blocked such aspirations? I would like to learn more about how Republika Srpska maintaining key policies regarding state military- owned assets plays a role in this regard. Additionally, I do wonder overall how much salience the Russian and Serbian government actually have to influence the hearts and minds of everyday Bosnians. Is it that they’re actively changing Bosnian political attitudes, or that these attitudes (at least from the minority) happen to align with the stances of these two foreign governments?
Hello Ari,
Excellent analysis and choice of subject. Your article highlights the unfortunate reality, that anti-democratic interest groups can take advantage of democracy to push to a hateful agenda. I found the data regarding Bosnians wishing to join NATO but are denied this policy. Overall, I enjoyed the analysis of an often overlooked part of the world. Well done.
Hi Ari,
Prior to reading this blog post, I did not know that Bosnia and Herzegovina was trying to push for democracy. I also did not know that they were moving towards a NATO membership with the help of the United States. I learned a lot of new information from your blog post.
Russia is a strong state and gains a lot of its strength by weakening the nations that it can. I have noticed a trend in many different blog posts on democratic erosion, that Russia has influence over a lot of aspects of different countries. In this case, it seems that Russia’s influence has a purpose to hinder the goals of the United States. Russia is threatened by the spread of western influence. In order to reassert their dominance Russia, in this case, has created competing interests. One of the most impactful pieces of evidence to me is the fact that over 70% of Bosnians desired to enter membership in NATO, and yet policies were put in place by the opposition to interfere with membership.
Great blog post! I appreciated the insight you provided and the new knowledge I now have. How do you feel this situation will end? Do you think Russia is doing this against one particular country or just to gain control?
Hi Ari,
This was all great information regarding a case I knew very little about. Tyranny of the minority is often viewed as something only likely in theory, as it seems counterintuitive in definition. The example of Bosnia and how their foreign relations with Russia and the West demonstrates this concept in a very clear, almost frightening way. However, I couldn’t help but continue thinking about the larger question you asked in the title of your post: what is the influence of foreign interests in a developing democracy. In this example it is relatively easy to see why demcracy has failed to fully consolidate in Bosnia, due to tensions between the US and Russia and the complex nature of Bosnia’s relationships with said countries. But it is alarming how many examples there are of potentially strong democracies being ruined by being the focle point of foreign disputes. One statistic I found from a professor at Carnegie Mellon was that the US had intervined in roughly 80 foreign elections between the end of World War II and the year 2000. While I don’t know the exact context of all these interventions, it really goes to show that the US and other countries trying to “spread democracy” often have their own interests in mine without considering the impacts those interests might have on a country like Bosnia.
Ari,
This blog post presents a strong and compelling analysis of how foreign interests play an intricate part in the development of democracy around the world but dives deeply into the political complexities of Bosnia and Herzegovina – demonstrating the weight that outside factors, such as political incentives and propaganda, have on the establishment of a secure democracy. Merely democratizing is not enough for countries experiencing push-back and influence similar to Russia and Serbia’s agenda, in which anti-democratic ideals are used to diminish the already weak structure of democracy within Bosnia’s region. Unfortunately, Bosnia seems to have fallen victim to a larger anti-western scheme demonstrated by nations like Russia.
The tensions between democratic and non-democratic states present challenges for still-developing democracies, including the risk of implementing boundaries that would prevent countries like Bosnia from transitioning into more democratic – encouraging the opposite transition. This post highlights the complications in the Bosnia case and begs the question of what can be done to better understand to impacts that significant foreign interests and tensions have on the development of democratic regimes. It appears that little impact or de-influence has been made despite protests and disagreement within the Bosnian population. What else can aspiring democratic states do to reject anti-democratic propaganda and foreign influence? This analysis introduces an area of politics that is often looked over, yet likely affects the democratization process drastically.
It would be interesting to investigate even further into other ways foreign interests might restrict (or advance) the development of democracy in different regions.