In Harold Ramis' cult film Groundhog Day from the early XNUMXs, the main protagonist is trapped in the same day, waking up and reliving the same day every day, the day of the groundhog. According to the belief on that day, it is possible to know how long winter will last depending on whether the groundhog sees its shadow. If he sees her, he will be scared and return to the den, and winter will last, if not, spring is here.
As in the mentioned movie, for the last 20 years the citizens of BiH have been trapped in the endless repetition of the same, endlessly boring, exhaustingly long and unconvincing campaigns with more or less the same protagonists, looking at the election campaigns like groundhogs with the eternal question of whether they will see their own shadow or whether to bring about changes. By all accounts, it seems that will be the case this time as well.
No matter how reasonable they were and resisted with rational arguments, that there is still a long time before the election and that it is pointless to campaign a year earlier, the pre-election campaign is there and all around us. The key reason for this stems from the fact that in countries like ours, which are somewhere halfway between democracy and dictatorship (popular democracy), the stakes in election and pre-election games are very high, and the price of losing power is even higher. In addition to the loss of power itself, which in our case includes the loss of almost unlimited power and control over state resources, stepping down from power carries with it a great risk of discovering various abuses and criminal acts. Something like that in the case of the establishment of such a rule of law can consequently lead to the loss of freedom for those who consumed the power. Of course, there is also a reasonable thesis that the majority of the ruling elite would have nothing to do in case of losing power, because a large part of them, apart from decades of experience in performing functions at some level of government, do not have any professional qualification or competence. On the other hand, the autistic and endlessly fragmented opposition still does not understand that the mere fact that they have established some form of usually insincere mutual cooperation will not in itself lead to the exaltation of the justifiably dissatisfied majority and that without seeking additional legitimacy for mostly grounding criticism of the government, and through cooperation with wider social groups, including civil society, trade unions and different social categories, can hardly count on success.
There are convincing theories that say that a stable democracy requires at least three or four cycles of change of government, which despite or precisely because of regular election cycles, we still haven't succeeded.
Just a cursory look at the political scene will tell us that the same characters are still there, with maybe changed parties or ideologies, but ready to still defend their right to stay there. Is it precisely because of the high price of leaving power or insufficiently articulated and determined change agents or both. However, democracy is not just about regular election cycles. Much more is needed for democracy. And human rights and freedoms, and functional and stable institutions to protect them, and a consistent division of power and other things. Otherwise, everything resembles a game with a known winner in advance or a one-party multi-party system.
And this mandate period, despite the great effort of those in power, and not infrequently EU officials, to convince us otherwise, did not bring anything new, or in other words, it was completely disastrous, at least for the majority, with very little chance that something will happen by the end of the mandate. change. For those with cheaper tickets, it is enough just to look at the economic indicators or the scale of population exodus to the countries of Western Europe to understand what it is all about.
The lightly promised speed of implementing the reform agenda faced the harsh reality of the insincere intentions of the political elite, whose only real interest is still the status quo. The existing system is the best possible for them, because only in it they can continue unhindered to use public resources for private enrichment without any responsibility. That is why EU officials from the stands applauded the implementation of the reform agenda with rose-tinted glasses, which amounted to an additional transfer of the burden of reforms to the citizens, without the real intention of fundamentally changing anything. The best example of this is the initiative to increase excise duties, which is wholeheartedly supported and advocated by the EU. At the same time, forgetting about the story of the reduction of administration, which can be a great source of savings, or, God forbid, the suppression of corruption, which can save the country billions. Following the line of least resistance, both realized that it is far easier to shift the burden to the citizens than to reduce the administration or try to fight corruption.
So what to expect from the election, if anything? According to the existing rules of the game, that is, the complete capture of the state by the private interests of the oligarchy, it is almost impossible to expect a different outcome from the current situation. Such a system necessarily leads to the concentration of power in the hands of a few at the top of the political pyramid of power. For a fundamental change, it is necessary to change the rules of the game, that is, the rules that directly affect the functioning of the political system, so that power is distributed more equally. These changes can be described in one word as democratization. The good news is that there are many ways to do something like that, and the less good news is that the resistance to such changes has always and everywhere been enormous, almost a life-and-death struggle. The path of democratization leads above all through the democratization of the most important actors of the political system - political parties. Which, in our case, are anything but political parties in the modern sense of the word, so also employment agencies, one-person companies, intermediary agencies for winning tenders and who knows what else. No less important is the introduction of the institute of extraordinary elections, to prevent blockades and agonies of inter-party trade. An important aspect of democratization would be the introduction of mandatory voting. In such a way, it would be beneficial to break the parallel structures that manage institutions through clientelistic networks in the hands of political parties.
The establishment of an elementary fair and honest election process is certainly implied. Comrade Stalin noticed a long time ago that it is not important who votes how, but who counts and how.
In the short term, the priority focus should be the creation of a consensus, as much as it may sound like a platitude worn out by excessive disingenuous use, on European and regional integrations. The introduction of a type of previously known European clause, which would prevent blockages on the way to integration, is proving to be a necessity. If there is a will, it should not be too difficult either, and based on the principle of negotiation chapters that include the acquis of the EU, establish a coordination and strategic framework for meeting the conditions for joining in each chapter. Given that this part of the framework is certainly harmonized with the European acquis, it could be a very simple criterion regarding the issue of a well-politicized transfer of jurisdiction.
As an illustration of how important this issue is, the fact that BiH has failed to use enormous amounts of funds from IPA 2 due to non-fulfillment of conditions, i.e. due to the absence of nationwide strategies in numerous areas, is on the best path to continue such a completely irrational and devastating practice.
Of course, none of the above is any historical or any necessity. The EU, burdened with numerous internal problems and challenges, has all the time in the world at its disposal to wait for our answers to the questionnaire or the outcomes of the Kafkaesque mechanisms for coordination of coordination. Therefore, the answer to the question of what the elections will bring depends on who and how, if at all, will articulate the dissatisfaction of the majority into a credible alternative to the existing situation. (6yka.com)
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
