To intervene, or not to intervene? Developing an understanding on the relationship between international intervention and the ethnification of politics BIANCA BUCEC Master's Thesis Spring 2021 Word Count: 21459 words Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University Supervisor: Johan Brosche 1 ABSTRACT This study explores the relationship between international intervention and the ethnification of politics and seeks to explain the degree to which international involvement affects the degree of ethnification of politics. Deriving from explanations that suggest that the ethnification of politics is attributed to the greater interethnic trust facilitated through credible institutions, this study argues that the ethnification of politics is lower in cases where the greater involvement by the international intervention in local institution-building can be observed. Using the method of structure focused comparison, the suggested hypothesis is tested on two cities in Bosnia and Hercegovina – Mostar and Sarajevo. Data was collected through a manual empirical analysis and the tracing of historical institution-building actions by the international community in each city. The main finding shows relative support for the causal relationship; however, the observed causal mechanism is different to the expected one. This signals that the degree of international involvement in local institution-building processes cannot, in isolation, explain variation on the ethnification of politics. Thus, further research is needed to both identify additional causal factors and build the interaction effects that can explain the observed variation. Keywords: post-war politics, international intervention, ethnification of politics, Mostar, Sarajevo 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would be incomplete without the support, understanding, and compassion given to me by many along the way. Firstly, to my supervisor Johan Brosche – thank you for your patience, your understanding, and your guidance throughout this process. Thank you also for providing clarity and understanding throughout the emotional rollercoaster of this thesis. To Roland Kostić, duboko se zahvaljujem for your mentorship over the last two years, for your endless words of advice and for your confidence in my abilities. An indispensable amount of gratitude goes to Cathinca, Katrina, Louis, Kamil, Mathilda and Lars – even through a pandemic and a distance of over ten thousand kilometres, I’ve had your support, encouragement, and positivity. Thank you for being the best friends throughout this programme. To my JP – without your warmth, your kindness, and your endless understanding, this thesis would not have been possible. Thank you for your attentiveness, your love, and your patience with me throughout this programme, and especially over the last six months. To Pete – thank you for offering me sanctuary, a place to write, space to speak, and an ear to listen. To all my friends and family, wherever ‘here’ is for you – my gratitude, my love, and my sincerest appreciation. And lastly, most importantly to my incredible parents Sanja and Zoran, to whom I owe everything; I dedicate this work to you. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 5 List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... 6 Chapter One: Introduction .......................................................................................................... 7 Chapter Two: Previous Research .............................................................................................. 11 Chapter Three: Theory .............................................................................................................. 17 Chapter Four: Research Design ................................................................................................ 24 Chapter Five: Bosnia and Hercegovina; an Overview ............................................................ 33 Chapter Six: Sarajevo................................................................................................................. 40 Chapter Seven: Mostar............................................................................................................... 49 Chapter 8: Cross-Case Analysis ................................................................................................ 57 Chapter 9: Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 71 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 73 APPENDIX 1 ............................................................................................................................... 80 APPENDIX II .............................................................................................................................. 81 APPENDIX III – DATA ............................................................................................................. 82 4 List of Figures Table 1: The Peacebuilding Agenda (based on Hippler, 2005: 7-10, Bogdandy,et. al 2005:584-586; Kostić, 2007: 39- 40) 19 Table 2: Conceptualising the processes of International Intervention 20 Table 3: Indicators for Independent Variable 32 Table 4: Classification of Parties based on party messaging (from Grebenar, 2019; NBL, 2018; PZP, 2018; NiP, 2018) 36 Table 5: Sarajevo yearly % of votes per party across all four municipal districts (Izbori BiH, 2020) 45 Table 6: Sarajevo electoral trends by Classification (by % of total vote) * represents the absence of significant statistics 46 Table 7: Sarajevo electoral trends if calculated by ethnified vs. ethnified party (% of total vote, where yellow represents majority) 47 Table 8: Mostar yearly % of votes per party across all districts (Izbori BiH, 2020) 54 Table 9: Mostar electoral trends by Classification (by % of total vote) 54 Table 10: Mostar electoral trends if calculated by ethnified vs. ethnified party (% of total vote, where yellow represents majority) 56 Figure 1: Causal Mechanism 22 Figure 2: Legislative and Executive Bodies of Bosnia and Hercegovina (Toal, O’Loughlin and Djipa, 2006: 62) 34 Figure 3: Line graph illustrating the trend of ethnification of politics in Sarajevo 58 Figure 4: Line graph illustrating the trend of ethnification of politics in Mostar 59 Figure 5: Comparative chart of the ethnification of politics between Sarajevo and Mostar 62 5 List of Abbreviations BiH Bosnia and Hercegovina EU European Union DPA 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement 1995 FBiH Federation fo Bosnia and Hercegovina HDZ Hrvatska Demokratska Zajednica (Croatian Democratic Union) ISM Interim Statute of Mostar OHR Office of High Representative in Bosnia SDP Socijalna Demokratska Partija BiH (Social Democratic Party of Bosnia) US United States UN United Nations UK United Kingdom 6 Chapter One: Introduction One of the most significant peace initiatives to mark the end of an ethnic conflict is the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Hercegovina. Also known as the Dayton Agreement 1995, it marks one of the most profound restructures of a post-conflict society. Not only did the agreement bring about the cessation of ethnic violence in former Yugoslavia, it also deeply entrenched the involvement of international actors in the post-conflict reconstruction and ethnic reconciliation efforts of the reunified Bosnia and Hercegovina (BiH) (Kostić 2008). Nearly twenty-five years on, the Dayton Peace Agreement 1995 stands as the fundamental ground upon which modern Bosnia and Hercegovina is founded. To supplement and reinforce the DPA 1995, there have been a plethora of staggered mandates and nation-building initiatives. The relative success and failure of these in Bosnia and Hercegovina is starkly evident in its national political instability; a tension that is debated along ethnonationalist lines. For a conflict that was (by all common accounts) fought along ethnic lines, Bosnia and Hercegovina remains nationally divided. Recent national election polling shows that the presence, and popularity of ethnonationalist political parties are strong, with political rhetoric reflecting interests that mimic ethnic differentiation (Whitt 2010). This trend suggests at the very least that at the national level of BiH, ethnicity plays a large role in steering and guiding the political agenda of the nation, and that policy is informed by ethnic differentiation. At the sub-national level recent cantonal elections held indicate that the local municipalities share a similar narrative. Cities such as Sarajevo tell a story of growing support for interethnic communication and cooperation, and of a reduction in support for ethnonationalist political parties (Izbori 2020). In contrast, cities such as Mostar indicate a deepening of divisions, resulting in political stalemate, widespread defunding, and a turn to conservative ethnonationalist parties that breed ethnic division (Balkan Insight, 2020). Given this complex context, the international community has, time and time again, maintained that the nation is considered a ‘successful’ model of both power-sharing and nation- building by an international intervention (Merdzanovic, 2015). It has continued its year-on-year scale back of involvement, receding its role institutionally, politically, and socially