Civil society and NGOs seem to be actively involved in building social capital in Bosnia and Herzegovina. What have they been doing and have they been effective?
A discussion on social capital in BiH would be incomplete without analysing the impacts of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society at large. Civil society functions as an important cornerstone of liberal democracies, and numerous studies have explored its role in facilitating the accumulation of social capital in modern societies (Fukuyama, 2001). It is thus crucial to examine the effects of civil society on the building of social capital for long-term reconciliation in BiH.
What’s civil society like in BiH today?
Civil society organisations (CSOs) and NGOs have been a key player in the peacebuilding and transitional justice infrastructures of BiH ever since the end of the Yugoslav conflict. In the immediate years after the war, the civil society landscape prioritised distributing humanitarian aid and providing support for displaced refugees (Dmitrović, 2011). Activists in BiH, as well as the wider Balkan region, were mostly concerned with addressing the human rights abuses of the wars and lobbied for institutional condemnation of war criminals (Kurze, 2013). However, with changing political circumstances, such as Bosnia’s potential accession to the EU, and the rise of a younger generation who had never experienced the conflict firsthand, CSOs and NGOs had to orientate towards rebuilding inter-ethnic trust while delicately maintaining a culture of remembrance (Kurze, 2013; Dmitrović, 2011).
In today’s BiH, it seems that things aren’t looking great for this particular sector. Dmitrović (2011) argues that ‘civil society in Bosnia and Herzegovina is marked by a complete absence of social capital, i.e. interest for volunteer activism in most citizens in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is one of the main prerequisites for the development of a new pattern of collective behaviour’. This absence is attributed to the lack of tradition of citizen activism in BiH, non-transparency of the work of NGOs, insufficient capacity of CSOs and bad sectoral networking (Dmitrović, 2011). With this context in mind, we will be evaluating in retrospect the efforts of Caritas (Sarajevo) and Nansen Dialogue (Mostar) in fostering social ties within post-conflict communities.
Bonding through psycho-social healing at Caritas (Sarajevo)
We visited the Sarajevo chapter of Caritas, which is a Catholic-based NGO that was created to address the humanitarian crisis in Bosnia that followed after the wars. There was a public speaking event, which is part of a larger ongoing series of dialogues that encourage war veterans, victims and others affected to speak on the events of 1992 to 1995.
The lovely folks at Caritas, who comprised mostly of younger people, explained to us that the session’s speakers hailed from the three different ethnicities: Serb, Bosniak and Croat. However, they cautioned us not to hold onto simplistic assumptions of Serb-as-perpetrator and Bosniak-as-victim; all individuals had gone through horrific events and the main point was to share different perspectives and narratives in the spirit of mutual understanding.
The three speakers each shared their personal stories of their involvement in the war; they were juvenile fighters who thought they were fighting for noble causes, only to be disillusioned when they realised the bloodshed was merely orchestrated by extremist megalomaniacs. All of them agreed that Caritas was a safe space for them to share their experiences from different perspectives and this platform has been an important part of their own healing. Trauma, as painful and unwanted as it is, was a common bond that these three speakers shared. The friendship between the three men was very clear, especially when they injected their comments with occasional dark humour, perhaps as a coping mechanism for the difficult memories and emotions that are being dredged up in these sharing sessions.
Perhaps what struck us even more is the possible legacies that are created by these initiatives. One student asked a question on whether the war had any influence on the way they raise their children, especially given how structural segregation (i.e. schools) still exists. The consensus was that all of them actively teach the importance of multiculturalism and peace to their children and try to rebuild inter-ethnic trust within their own individual capacities.
From Caritas, we see that there are some ground-up attempts to rebuild social capital by providing a common platform for psychosocial healing. Based on our sole visit there, it seemed to work — at least for the three speakers. However, as one NGO worker explained, there is much more work to do in the face of youth apathy and what he called the “normalisation of ‘negative’ peace”, which refers to young people’s limited understanding of what genuine peace could look like in a post-conflict society.
Dialogues for peacebuilding in schools (Mostar)
On the other hand, the Norway-backed Nansen Dialogue also works on fostering trust and cooperation between the different ethnic communities of Mostar.
Elvir Đuliman, director of Nansen Dialogue, shared that the organisation is committed to facilitating joint activities and creating common spaces for children of different ethnicities to interact meaningfully with one another. Given the salient Bosniak-Croat divide in Mostar, there are many obstacles that limit the capacity of their work. For example, proposed joint activities have to be approved by the education ministry and schools, whose vested interest in mono-ethnic nationalism might run counter to Nansen Dialogue’s objectives. Nevertheless, there has been some support amassed over the years, with partnerships established with six schools in Mostar.
Nansen Dialogue constantly emphasised that their target audience really is children, which is slightly different from that of Caritas. With schools at the core, they have immense influence on the growth of Mostar, as students go on to influence the political, social and economic spheres of the community. They have also worked with young politicians, who might be more inclined towards multiculturalism and less tied down by the shackles of resentment that characterised the previous generations.
Whether Nansen’s attempts at creating social capital within Mostar have come to fruition is still up for debate, as it is difficult to measure the effectiveness of their work in bringing together children of different ethnicities. Arguably, this would require a much more long-term investigation to evaluate the strength of social ties between young people.
So...is civil society helpful?
Perhaps the most distinct commonality between Caritas and Nansen Dialogue is the strong depoliticisation that informs many of their initiatives. While we did not get to examine the full range of their work based on the short time we had in BiH, it seems that such depoliticisation within some CSOs makes sense, especially given the political climate of ethnic-based party politics within BiH . While many would contend that civil society must remain politicised in their activism and resistance, we cannot dismiss the amazing work that Bosnian NGOs are currently doing, in spite of the criticisms highlighted by Dmitrović (2011).
Ultimately, Caritas and Nansen are not representative of the entire civil society landscape in BiH. There could be other NGOs that pursue stronger lobbying and active forms of activism, but it does not negate the value of adopting what could seem like a ‘safer’ approach as seen in the two aforementioned groups. While civil society still has a long way to go in BiH, it is safe to say that the country would be worse off without the organic efforts of people who genuinely care about peacebuilding and cooperation.
Bibliography
Dmitrović, T. (2011). Challenges of Civil Society in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Retrieved June 10, 2019, from http://www.sif.ba/dok/1392298597.pdf
Fukuyama, F. (2001). Social Capital, Civil Society and Development. Third World Quarterly, 22(1), 7-20. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3993342
Kurze, A. (2016). #WarCrimes #PostConflictJustice #Balkans: Youth, Performance Activism and the Politics of Memory. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 10(3), 451-470. doi:10.1093/ijtj/ijw014
Comments