Anna Callaghan
Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project
Sarajevo
The declaration of independence from Yugoslavia in 1991 sparked the Bosnian War, four years of ethnic cleansing and destruction. The nation still struggles with transparency in government, corruption and is still plagued by those wounds inflicted two decades ago. Though the more atrocious violations of human rights ceased along with the direct conflict, the manufactured ethnic tensions between Muslims, Serbs and Croats that helped catalyze the war in the early 90’s still linger in its wake. The landscape has shifted drastically and groups that once managed to coexist struggle to navigate life in the post-war context. The Dayton Peace Accords that ended the war in 1995 created a multi-ethnic democratic government, meaning that three Presidents – one Bosniak, one Croat and one Serb – share a four-year term, rotating power every eight months, a system that ultimately stifles effective governance and progress. The existence of these ethnic groups illustrates not only divisiveness, but also serves as a reminder of how politicians transformed a population that once lived in relative coexistence into adversaries. Freedom of information, in this post-war context especially, has an important potential in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
I believe that independent investigative journalism is integral to building an informed civil society, but this is an impossible task without liberal access to information. Grid-lock is built into the system as a check on power, but in a restrictive rather than productive way. No ethnic group or its respective leader wants any another to have control over policy, so reform in any meaningful way is very difficult. The intention is to increase government transparency, open government and contribute to an educated democracy so citizens can have a bigger role in civil society and propel the nation out of this messy, post-war period. By empowering citizens through knowledge and information, the population can hold their government and politicians accountable and push Bosnia toward European Union membership, a move that would bring welcome stability to the country.
Freedom of Information is defined as the right to access information held by public bodies; it is recognized in Article 19 of the United Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Resolution 59 of the UN General Assembly. As of October 2012, 93 countries had some kind of freedom of information regime in place. The Freedom of Action to Information Act (FoAIA) was adopted in July 2001 in Bosnia and Herzegovina and May 2001 in the Republika Srpska; it went into effect in February of 2002. The act applies to any publicly held organizations carrying out public functions. Requests for information must be made in writing and the government has 15 days to respond. Information is considered publicly accessible unless the body has a legitimate reason, like privacy or security, to classify it. Thus information can be withheld if it would cause “substantial harm,” though pertinence to public interest is allegedly considered in this process. The problem lies in the implementation and application of the act. The government does not always respect freedom of the press in practice and political pressure on media institutions continues to be a problem.
Freedom of Information is less concrete in terms of a pragmatic evaluation. What are the deliverables? Are we looking at the ratio of freedom of information requests versus those granted? A country can be judged on how free and open it is, but there are a lot of inputs that lend themselves to freedom of information like the safety of journalists, independence of the media, corruption, etc. There is a dueling rationality here as it is often in the best interest of the state to restrict freedom of the press, as it can be a counterforce to their agenda. Bear in mind that politicians manufactured the ethnic tensions that exist today in the early 90’s in order to manipulate the public, so while government might want to subdue the FoAIA, the press and numerous NGOs know it is integral for society. Freedom of information and progress toward a just and open society run on a track parallel with government and legal institutions. In order to show tangible progress government and the press must work in conjunction.
I think that framing this issue as a human right changes the dialogue and changes the approach in a positive way. In Bosnia many people are tired of being entrenched in the past, but currently there’s no path for progress to move the country forward. It’s refreshing to focus on newer issues, or new approaches to issues, and making sure they don’t become submerged in the old narrative. Framing it as a human right elevates local issues to the international level and takes the discourse to the world stage. Doing so attracts NGOs and IOs to the country to assist in the mission. The organization I am working for is a 501(c)(3) based in the United States and draws most of its financial support from outside of Bosnia, which is a good thing because the state would not provide the same amount, if any, funding to the organization as it doesn’t always serve the interests of politicians. Freedom of information is an issue that is present in some way in every country, so there is strength that can be garnered by joining with the international community not just in financial and intellectual resources but also in terms of having the support of a global mission. On the other hand, framing it as a human right can hinder appropriate response, at least in the way it is perceived. Bosnia is a country that has suffered ethnic cleansing, which is considered an awful “human rights” violation. So while many of those responsible have been tried in international criminal courts, the foundation of human rights in Bosnia was skewed to start with and history shows there’s not institutionalized respect for many of them. In theory gathering support from global human rights groups should help, and it does in ways I’ve previously listed, but it’s definitely not enough to rely on as regard for human rights as a whole has been fleeting.
In order to move forward something has to change. This October, barring another delay, Bosnia and Herzegovina will conduct a census. This will be the first one since the war and will not only resurrect old memories and tensions, but also will create uncertainty over how to self-identify on the form. The census will likely bring more accurate data concerning the number and ethnicity of those who were killed and illustrate the demographic that exists today, which could possibly alter representation in government. Bosnia and Herzegovina today is standing on a precipice. The nation could easily fall into a pit of corruption or it could go the other direction, which will require collaboration across multiple bodies and a unified agenda. The framework for elevating the nation in regard to human rights exists, but progress has been stagnant for years and I believe that barrier is government as it stands today. This is of course the dynamic that exists in most countries battling human rights violations, so I want to explore the interplay between government and organizations at a deeper level. I think it is possible for progress to occur outside of governmental change, which is something else I want to explore. To what extent can human rights organizations in Bosnia, specifically those dealing with the press and freedom of information, succeed without government cooperation? And what is the true impact of the work they’re doing on society? How can this propel the country in a positive way?