Croatian Assembly of Bosnia says I’m wrong
Josip Merdžo, Secretary General of the Croatian National Assembly BiH, writes:
In your article ‘Bosnia’s teapot tempest’ released at peacefare.net, May, 2nd, 2018, several inaccurate facts were made regarding the decision of the Constitutional Court of BiH U-23/14 related to the request made by Mr. Ljubic for reviewing the constitutionality of the Election Law. Obviously, you did not read this request because in your article you said that „… Ljubić asked the Court to forbid the Croats from Sarajevo, Tuzla and Bihać from becoming members of the House of Peoples of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina“, which is not true, and you can check it by reviewing the Constitutional Court’s decision U-23/14.
You also claim „He argued that Croat candidates should be elected only out of the majority Croat cantons, thus ensuring that only Croats vote for Croat delegates“,obviously not knowing the provisions of the Constitution FBiH and Election Law which precisely foresee that each constituent people within their own club in cantonal assemblies elect delegates for The House of Peoples.
Mr. Serwer, this is not about politics, it is just about legal arguments. The elections are conducted in accordance with the Election Law. Currently, the Election Law lacks a part that the Constitutional Court has abolished and there is no possibility to form the House of Peoples of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina or the House of Peoples at the state level.
Yes, this provision remains in the Entity Constitution of FBiH, but if I am not mistaken, the Constitution of BiH and the decision of the BiH Constitutional Court are above the Entity Constitution. So there is no legal ability to carry out what you are writing about.
You mention the situation after the 2010 elections when the OHR suspended the CEC decision when the session of the House of Peoples was annulled because the President of the Federation was elected in an improper manner. If you had tried to be better informed, you would never use this shameful move by the OHR and international community as a positive example.
According to the Election Law, the mandate of the legislative bodies lasts four years. It is unclear how you make the conclusion that this mandate can be extended after the expiry of this deadline. An example is found in the OHR standpoint on the City Council of Mostar. After the end of the mandate, the City Council no longer exists although the elections were not held for reasons because no amendment to the Election Law was made.
How little do you know about the things you are writing about is demonstrated once again in the fact that you are looking for the OHR and the international institutions not to apply the 2013 census but 1991 census! The BiH Constitution does not mention any census regarding electoral issues at all. The Entity Constitution of the FBiH in Amendment 52 Article 11a, states that the public institutions apply a 1991 census, namely: “Ministries in the Government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Cantonal Governments, Municipal Authorities, Cantonal and Municipal Courts in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina . “, So the 1991 census does not apply to the legislative bodies.
If you look at the valid provisions of the Election Law of BiH, you could also find that the “last census” is mentioned as a benchmark on a number of occasions, and the latest census is 2013. Also, Constitutional Court decisions U-23/14 and U-3/17 refer exclusively to the application of the 2013 census.
Dear Mr. Serwer, I do not intend to comment on your dealing with the HDZ, third entity, separatist tendencies, etc., which are commonly found in the performances of extreme Bosniak elements. That just proves that you are dominantly trying to enforce political interpretations instead of legal ones, and here we are talking about the implementation of the Constitutional Court’s decision.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
4 thoughts on “Croatian Assembly of Bosnia says I’m wrong”
Comments are closed.
RSS - Posts
Professor Serwer, please understand that BiH Croats are, under these circumstances, forced to support one party and one candidate for Presidency.
Only with electoral changes, BiH Croats could finally live full democracy with multi partisan and multi candidate elections.
Without that, it’s not possible to have such a development.
I thin this issue must be taken to legal ground as suggeste in this reaction. The matter is overly politicised. Legal argumentation makes things more clearer and solid.
Zoran Zoric, not BIH Croats. You’re arguing against yourself.
The issue in BIH is that there’re not parties across entity lines, whether they’re the real entity lines, or imaginary ones. Parties are cemented along the national lines, where we have a situation where a Croat cannot be the president of any other party but the one that carries his national prefix. This leaves no political space for liberal parties, of the EU or the US type. Nor some modern left wing parties, nor any other type of parties but those of that are a combination of a particular nation and religion. In this way, so called constituent nations, are doing to each other, the same thing they’re doing to minorities together, or creating the second class citizens of BIH. This is what I call tribal democracy, or ghetto democracy, and it cannot prosper, because the founding base ideas are inherently against democracy, or the real value that a real democracy can bring to a country when properly utilized. As social anthropologists had found long ago, ghetto is deadly for those in ghettos. These tribal or ghetto ideas are creating three ghettos, and one big ghetto for all of them and everyone else. It’s fundamentally against every idea of any emancipated liberal democracy, and society that goes with it, and every value achieved in the advanced societies of which we’re hoping to become members.