In recent years, political decisions concerning the fate of Bosniaks in Montenegro have become a subject of increasing controversy, and the current situation in Ulcinj provides a powerful illustration of the deep political differences within Bosniak society. Namely, the decision to potentially sell Velika Plaza to a businessman from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which would last for as long as a century, has tested the morality and political responsibility of the Bosniak Party leadership, whose actions, according to many, have deeply disappointed the people they are supposed to represent.
This decision, which the Montenegrin government tried to push through the Parliament, with the clear aim of implementing the economic agreement reached with the UAE at the expense of the vital interests of Ulcinj, has caused justified anger among citizens. Ulcinj is, in fact, one of the key places for the Bosniak community, both in Montenegro and in the Balkans, because the beach, which has been the heart of tourism for decades, represents the lifeline for many families and the entire local economy.
However, the key moment in this political drama was the vote of the Bosniak Party, which - with the support of the Serb parliamentary forces - decided to support this agreement. Such a political decision, made by the party leadership headed by Ervin Ibrahimović, represented a serious blow to the interests of the Bosniak people in southern Montenegro, and most of all - to their identities and economy. Of course, the public reaction was strong. The citizens of Ulcinj, as well as the wider community, experienced this act as a betrayal. In the end, the question arises: was the political loyalty of the Bosniak Party leaders really directed towards the common good of Bosniaks or was it a matter of pragmatism that seeks the personal and political interests of a small number of individuals?
This political pragmatism is also evident in a broader context, when we recall the historical events that shaped the position of Bosniaks in the Balkans. Although Sandžak has undergone numerous changes over the centuries, from the Ottoman period to the post-Yugoslav conflicts, it has never had the opportunity to collectively exercise its rights to national economic and cultural autonomy, as other peoples in the Balkans have. However, there was hope that with the new political framework and the emergence of a party that advocates for the rights of Bosniaks, this situation would change.
Unfortunately, at the decisive moment when the national interests of Bosniaks were to be protected, the party leadership failed to resist political pressure, nor to position itself as a true representative of the people.
The orientation towards political consultation with Andrija Mandić, the leader of a political party that openly identifies with policies that are not in line with Bosniak interests, further worsened the perception among Bosniaks. Mandić, known for his nationalist views, could not possibly be an ally of those seeking to preserve the rights of Bosniaks in Montenegro. This is not about some unsettled political situation - this was a clear and conscious political commitment that comes at the expense of the national and cultural values of the Bosniak people.
It is understandable that political reality sometimes requires compromises, however, essential principles are at stake, and this was an opportunity for the leadership of the Bosniak Party to show that it knows how to stand on the side of its people, to fight for their economic survival and cultural identity. Instead, we are witnessing a turning away from that identity and its preservation, which cannot be justified by any political calculations. The decision to support the agreement on the sale of the beach deeply disappointed both political analysts and ordinary citizens, because it became clear that the leadership of the Bosniak Party is more interested in its own political interests than in the real advancement and protection of the Bosniak community.
This issue is not just political - it is a question of ethical and moral choice. And while the people of Ulcinj and the wider Balkans view this with disgust, the question arises: how did this happen? How did politicians who are supposed to represent the voice of the people choose a policy that is not in line with the interests of those who elected them? How is it possible that party leaders so easily, regardless of the consequences, concluded an agreement with big capital that threatens both the state-economic foundations and the social structure of Bosniak society in that region?
Finally, the question that remains open, and that is being asked by Bosniak Party voters: will this party, which should be the centerpiece of the fight for Bosniak rights, finally turn to its roots and the interests of the people to whom it is dedicated, or will it continue to tread on the principles of political opportunism and favoritism that are far from the interests of its people?
The answer to this question will remain in the hands of those who believe that politics should be about serving the people, not personal gain. Because betrayal is the gravest sin of any politician - and in this case, betrayal is graver because it came from those who should be the protectors and leaders of that same people.
The author is a lawyer; he is the executive director of the Montenegrin Committee of Lawyers for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms (CKP)
Bonus video:
