After having explored the strategies employed by Bosnian-Herzegovinian intellectuals to legitimise their authority (§ 7.1) and assume the role of spokespersonship for the nation (§ 7.2), this section examines the ways in which they construct and represent Bosnia and Herzegovina in public discourse. As already specified at the beginning of § 7.2, in this specific context the concept of the nation should be understood in civic rather than ethnic terms. On the basis of the analytical findings, I have identified four main ways in which Bosnia and Herzegovina is thematised as a nation. These are:
1. Bosnia and Herzegovina as a dysfunctional society facing an uncertain future 2. Bosnia and Herzegovina as a political community dominated by corrupt elites 3. Bosnia and Herzegovina as a nation marked by a deep divide between the
people and the elites
4. The increasingly contested hegemony of the ethno-political paradigm
In the following, each theme will be discussed with examples taken from the sample.
7.3.1 Bosnia and Herzegovina as a dysfunctional society facing an uncertain future
As noted above, apart from a few exceptions the views expressed by most authors are substantially aligned with the dominant standpoint of the protesters. Thus, it is not surprising that, generally speaking, the most common representation of Bosnia and Herzegovina found in the sample texts is that of a society stricken by poverty, inequalities and social discontent, whose future prospects are dramatically compromised (strategy of singularisation through emphasis on national negative uniqueness, combined with a strategy of discontinuation outlining dystopian future scenarios, see § 3.5.3). Various authors articulate this theme in different ways, placing emphasis on specific aspects or resorting to certain discursive strategies rather than others.
Among the many instances available, I have chosen three examples in which this theme is particularly salient. In the first example, taken from The government is afraid of the unity of the citizens [B06], Ibrahim Prohić explores the reasons for the protests:
(38) Let us try now to specify what bothers the citizens. (39) Poverty, drastic social differences, unemployment, uncertainty, hopelessness, a collapsed economy, an irresponsible, arrogant and inefficient government, corruption and crime in conjunction with the authorities, the criteria on the basis of which one achieves social status or a professional career. (40) If this is not enough reason for citizens' dissatisfaction then there must be something deeply wrong with some people in this society.
Prohić makes a comprehensive list of the main problems affecting Bosnia and Herzegovina, portraying it as a dysfunctional and unjust society dominated by political corruption and economic hardship. Most items (processes, entities, and conditions) included in the list are largely nominalised; as a result, human agency is played down, and hence the very possibility of social change is made to appear rather unlikely. In the last sentence, Prohić constructs dissatisfaction as the only reasonable reaction to the present state of affairs, thus adding to the dramatic and discouraging tone that characterises the whole passage.
The second example is from United in anger by Dino Mustafić [B02], who also explains the outburst of the anti-government protests as driven by citizens’ dissatisfaction with the deteriorating social conditions:
(11) [...] generations of angry people were born and raised who have no more trust, nor patience, towards ways of doing politics that lead us into the blind alley of growing debt, as well as towards unemployment, shortage of hope, and an increasing number of people being sentenced to social death, that is, a life without future, and hence without meaning.
The two excerpts present similarities and differences. Broadly speaking, both convey an image of Bosnia and Herzegovina as suffering from bad administration, social distress and lack of future prospects. In both cases, the people/citizens are discursively construed as passive actors who are subjected to external disruptive forces, rather than as agents of change. This is evident from the predications associated with them: in Prohić’s excerpt they are bothered and express “dissatisfaction”, while in Mustafić’s
text they are “angry”, distrustful, impatient and “being sentenced to social death”. There is a discrepancy, however, in how responsibility is attributed: while Prohić tends to represent social problems as objective (and depersonalised) facts, Mustafić is slightly more forthright in blaming “ways of doing politics” (which is still a nominalisation, though) for the current social crisis (strategy of delegitimation of national political elites, see § 3.5.3). The style also differs, as Mustafić employs a more figurative language (notice the metaphors of “the blind alley”, “shortage of hope” and “social death”), thus creating a rather vivid and dramatic tone.
An analogous representation of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a society facing an uncertain future appears in Nino Raspudić’s opinion piece [B05], when he discusses the factors lying behind the initial outbreak of protests in Tuzla:
(5) The initial impetus of the protests was the tremendous social and existential dissatisfaction, accumulated over years and decades, that stems from unemployment and poverty, but also from the impossibility of envisaging any better future within the existing paradigm. (6) For these reasons on Wednesday a mass of desperate people boiled over in Tuzla.
Like Prohić and Mustafić, Raspudić also portrays Bosnia and Herzegovina as a society that has failed to bring prosperity and well-being to most of its citizens, forcing them into frustration and exasperation. His critique is even more radical than that of his peers, because he regards the very structure (“the existing paradigm”) of Bosnian-Herzegovinian society as inherently flawed and ill-suited to cater to the needs and aspirations of its members. This is encapsulated in the expression “impossibility to envisage any better future”, which resonates with the “hopelessness” lamented by Prohić as well as the “life without future” deplored by Mustafić.
Generally speaking, the authors tend to discursively construct Bosnia and Herzegovina not only as a society facing serious economic and social hardships, but also, and prominently, as a context marked by uncertainty and where many people have been and continue to be exposed to insecurity, psychological stress and existential threats. Moreover, the responsibility of politicians in this regard is evoked by means of discursive strategies of delegitimation.
7.3.2 Bosnia and Herzegovina as a political community dominated by corrupt elites
Strictly connected with the previous point is the representation of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a political community tainted by dishonesty and corruption, which emerges as a salient theme in several texts from the sample (strategy of delegitimation of national political elites, see § 3.5.3). This largely reflects the tendency of many authors to assume the position of spokespersons by acting as political guides for the nation. In fact, as discussed above (§ 7.2.1), a typical way of performing this role is by criticising the political elites for their failure to comply with democratic requirements of transparency and accountability. In most cases, this critique is inscribed in the referential strategies employed in relation to individual politicians or the political leadership altogether. A clear example of this is found in the extract from Ibrahim Prohić’s interview for Dani reported in the previous section, in which the government is qualified as “irresponsible, arrogant and inefficient” and said to be involved in “corruption and crime”. However, there are also cases in which political corruption is thematised by means of more complex and sophisticated discursive strategies, involving specific argumentative, rhetorical and stylistic devices. Here I will discuss three such examples.
The first appears in Almasa Hadžić’s opinion piece Shame on them! [B01]:
(5) [The dissatisfied] think that the only one responsible for [their miserable lives] is the government. (6) What government? (7) The unjust, corrupt, and discredited one; the one that smuggled their factories and jobs; the one that unlawfully employed family members in the administration, in steering and supervisory boards, in Telecom, in the Power plant, in Elektroprivreda, as well as in other public enterprises; the government that for years has only served its own ends and protected itself, its power, its wages and its party interests.
By asking rhetorically, in sentence 6, what kind of government is the object of the protesters’ scorn, Hadžić gives herself the space to express her own personal views of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s political leadership. This occurs in the next sentence, in which the government is presented in extremely negative terms. The criticism derives much of its rhetorical force from the very structure of the sentence, which is organised as a sequence of paratactic clauses in which the same subject, i.e. the government, is coupled with different negative predicates, ranging from general predications to
concrete examples. Various forms of unethical behaviour are touched upon, such as malpractice and profiteering from the privatisation process, clientelism, nepotism, and abuse of power. The broader picture is that of a country in which deep-seated political corruption has long affected and continues to affect both the social and economic spheres.
The second example comes from Svetlana Cenić’s commentary for Dani [B10]. She constructs a rather elaborate metaphorical scenario in which Bosnia and Herzegovina’s political arena is represented as a market:
(18) [...] our political parties, organized as private companies, make up an oligopoly, a market where a small number of manufacturers compete with each other with the same or similar products. (19) The prices for the citizens are formed through secret agreements, while they publicly proclaim that competition exists. (20) For the product is essentially the same, only the packaging is different. [...] (22) Marketing boils down to the herd of voters exercising surveillance over themselves, the so-called “divide and rule”.
In Cenić’s view, the (metaphorical) political market of Bosnia and Herzegovina is severely affected by unfair competition, lack of transparency and consumer manipulation. On the one hand, political parties secure their hegemony by formally adhering to democratic principles while in fact restricting pluralism and public participation in the deliberation process. On the other, the citizens, derogatorily represented as a “herd”, succumb to manipulation and accept as legitimate the (ethnic) divisions that the political elites impose upon them. The broad picture that emerges from this metaphorical scenario is that of a country in which hypocritical and corrupt political elites retain power and preserve the status quo by reversing democratic practices and misleading the people.
The third and last illustration of the thematisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a corrupt political community is taken from Ibrahim Prohić’s interview for Dnevni Avaz [B09]:
(9) [Prohić] points out that the current government is not able to give up the bad habits it has had so far, nor is it ready for something constructive and creative, because it has for years been oriented to consumption and clientelism. (10) – Political changes are tied to interests, and people hardly waive their interests and acquired
positions, but instead defend them by all means. (11) Hypothetically, even if they wanted to change, the question is whether they would be able to do so. (12) The authorities will change only if obliged to, with constant pressure and control from below, from the people – Prohić maintains.
Whereas Cenić condemns the conservative and impervious attitude of the political elites as a deliberate strategy of power, Prohić interprets it as a symptom of their incapacity to relinquish deep-seated corrupt practices. In order to support this claim, he develops an argument that combines elementary political analysis with insights into the psychological aspects of power. This is reflected in the general principle (or warrant, in argumentative terms) that Prohić invokes in sentence 10, which associates political conservatism with people’s innate tendency to defend their own interests and privileges. The gist of his criticism is that the country’s political leadership is too entrenched in the status quo to be able to embrace change and articulate progressive political projects, unless it is forced to do so by the people. Albeit formulated from a different perspective and in a more neutral tone, Prohić’s criticism resonates well with both Hadžić’s and Cenić’s accounts.
As shown in these three examples, Bosnia and Herzegovina tends to be represented as a community in which corrupt political elites work against the people instead of addressing their demands, a portrayal that emerges quite strongly also from most of the remaining texts from the sample.
7.3.3 Bosnia and Herzegovina as a nation marked by a deep divide between the people and the elites
The third theme is a corollary of the first and the second. In addition to being represented as a dysfunctional society whose members are denied security and prosperity, and as country dominated by a corrupt political leadership, Bosnia and Herzegovina is also discursively constructed as a national community characterised by a dramatic cleavage between the people and the elites (strategy of polarisation stressing intra-societal divisions and conflicts, see § 3.5.3). In fact, several texts describe the masses as destitute, disempowered and languishing in misery, whereas the elites are portrayed as a clique, or rather a caste, of privileged and wealthy individuals who feel little or no solidarity towards the rest of the society.