Nenad Stojanović

When is a Country Multinational? Problems with Statistical and Subjective Approaches

Many authors have argued that we should make a clear conceptual distinction between mononational and multinational states. Yet the number of empirical examples they refer to is rather limited. France or Germany are usually seen as mononational, whereas Belgium, Canada, Spain and the UK are considered multinational. How should we classify other cases? Here we can distinguish between (at least) two approaches in the literature: statistical (i.e., whether significant national minorities live within a larger state and, especially, whether they claim self-government) and subjective (i.e., when citizens feel allegiance to sub-state national identities). Neither of them, however, helps us to resolve the problem. Is Italy multinational (because it contains a German-speaking minority)? Is Germany really mononational (in spite of the official recognition of the Danes and the Sorbs in some Lander)? On the other hand, is Switzerland the “most multinational country” (Kymlicka)? Let us assume that there is no definite answer to this dilemma and that it is all a matter of degree. There are probably few (if any) clearly mononational states and few (if any) clearly multinational states. Should we abandon this distinction in favour of other concepts like “plurinationalism” (Keating), “nations-within-nations” (Miller), “postnational state” (Abizadeh, Habermas), or “post-sovereign state” (MacCormick)? The article discusses these issues and, in conclusion, addresses the problem of stability and shared identity “plural” societies.

Minority Rights and Realpolitik: Justice-based vs. Pragmatic Arguments for Reserving Seats for National Minorities

Abstract This article explores the arguments used in parliamentary debates, in 2008, to justify the adoption of reserved seats for national minorities in local parliaments in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Content analyses of two parliamentary debates at the state level and nine municipal assembly sessions reveal two dominant frames: an ‘obligation frame’ and a ‘constituent peoples frame’. The former refers to the adoption of reserved seats for minorities as an international and legal obligation, while the latter challenges this institution, emphasizing the rights of the three constituent peoples (Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs) to be guaranteed reserved seats in addition to, or in place of, national minorities. Interestingly, the frame based on an idea of justice and suggesting the right of minorities to political representation is absent from parliamentary debates. The article discusses the implications of these findings, with a reference to the functioning of the institution of reserved seats in the long run.

Introduction: Ethnocracy at the Heart of Europe

Abstract The Roma and the Jews make up less than half a per cent of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina. And yet their leaders could sue their country, successfully, at the European Court of Human Rights, by claiming that the system of reserved seats in the state Presidency and the second chamber of Parliament is monopolised by and for the three ‘constituent peoples’ (Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs) and, thus, discriminatory towards minorities and other citizens. The 2009 ruling of the Court in Strasbourg (Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina) has shaken the very cornerstones of this unique European consociational ethnocracy and has obliged their leaders to undertake deep constitutional reforms. The three articles that compose this Special Section explore the role played by the ‘national minorities’ (such as Roma and Jews) in Bosnian politics, in particular in relation to the introduction and implementation of reserved seats for national minorities introduced in local assemblies for the 2008 municipal elections. The articles analyse the use of the system of reserved seats by national minorities, the reactions and the strategies of the ethnic parties representing the three constituent peoples and the patterns of descriptive versus substantive representation of minority interests. Addressing the questions of ‘what’, ‘why’ and ‘how’ of political representation of national minorities in a consociational context, the articles in this Special Section show that Bosnian tripartite ethnocracy hardly supports the intrusion of ‘non-constitutive’ elements in its framework and that national minorities still face significant obstacles when it comes to representation of their interests in a political system mainly concerned with the group rights of constituent peoples.

When non-nationalist voters support ethno-nationalist parties: the 1990 elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a prisoner’s dilemma game

In 1990, according to polls, 7 out of 10 citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina were against ethnic parties. Yet, 75% of voters ended up voting for one of the three main ethno-nationalist parties. In no other post-communist country, including other former Yugoslav republics, did ethnic parties receive such large support in the first democratic elections. In Croatia, for example, in the 1990 elections the Croatian ethnic party Hrvatska demokratska zajednica gathered 42% and the Serb ethnic party Srpska demokratska stranka gathered only 2% of the vote. Were Bosnians and Herzegovinians already that much ethno-nationalistically oriented in 1990? The article rejects this thesis and purports to explain the voting behaviour of the Bosnian electorate by using the prisoner’s dilemma theoretical framework. It concludes by arguing that the problem of collective action could have been addressed via a pre-electoral referendum on a ban of ethnic parties – a ban which had been actually adopted by the then-ruling Communist party, but was eventually overturned by the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Lotteries in Public Life: A Reader by Peter Stone (ed.). Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2011. 262pp., £14.95, ISBN 9 781845 402082

In recent years political theorists have become increasingly interested in lotteries as a tool for decision making or the selection of public officials. Ultimately, however, this topic remains rather marginal in the political science literature, as well as in real-world institutions (with the possible exception of the accounts of deliberative democracy and citizens’ juries).Against this background, the collection of essays under review represents a helpful effort to provide theoretical underpinnings for future research. Its editor, Peter Stone, claims that his anthology includes ‘every significant theoretical paper on lotteries published in English between 1959 and 1998’ (p. 2). The essays can be divided into three main categories. The first set of authors tackle the question of ‘what is lottery?’ (in chronological order: Sher, Kornhauser and Sager, and Wasserman). The second group is interested in the assignment of political office by lot (Mueller et al., Mulgan, Engelstad and Knag). Finally, a number of authors focus upon the random allocation of goods (Wolfle, Greely, Goodwin, Eckhoff, Hofstee and Broome). These papers are preceded by a thoughtful and extremely useful road map (the editor’s introduction), as well as by an article published in 1959 by Swedish sociologist Vilhelm Aubert (ch. 1). According to Stone,Aubert was the first author to tackle the topic from a theoretical perspective since Thomas Gataker’s Of the Nature and Use of Lots (1619). Any scholar interested in random selection in public life should have this reader in their library.Apart from the theoretical insights, especially with regard to the relationship between lotteries and theories of justice, it contains insightful examples from the use of lotteries in the past (in places such as ancient Greece, medieval Italian republics and Swiss cantons) and references to key authors (e.g. Aristotle, Montesquieu, Rousseau and Dahl). The main limitation of the book is inherent in its declared focus upon papers published in English only. The risk is that significant theoretical insights in other languages are ignored. Finally, it is a pity that this volume, especially with respect to its declared scope as ‘a reader’, does not provide an index of authors and key concepts, or a handy overview of the cited literature at the end of the book. Note 1 See, e.g., H. Buchstein, Demokratie und Lotterie, 2009; F. Cordano and C. Grottanelli (eds), Sorteggio pubblico e cleromanzia dall’antichità all’età moderna, 2001; and Y. Sintomer, Petite histoire de l’expérimentation démocratique:Tirage au sort et politique d’Athènes à nos jours, 2011.

The Northern Ireland Experience of Conflict and Agreement. A Model for Export

Consociational (or power-sharing) democracy is a well-known normative concept and an empirical model for divided societies. Yet it seems that it was largely ignored by the politicians who were involved in the design of institutions of such societies. Nonetheless, quite often they did apply the consociational elements such as executive power sharing, group autonomy, proportionality, and minority veto. As a Dublin official declared to Robin Wilson, in reference to the Belfast (Good Friday) 1998 agreement: ‘I don’t recall that we had any particular academic inspiration for what we were doing’ (p. 149). This is one of many anecdotal quotes that we can find in Wilson’s volume on conflict and agreement in Northern Ireland in which the author emerges as a fierce, but thoughtful and well informed, critic of consociationalism. It is based on numerous citations from the media, as well as on many personal interviews with known and less known politicians, civil servants and other decision makers involved in the Northern Ireland peace process. Wilson displays an excellent knowledge of the most influential theoretical and empirical contributions in political theory and comparative politics on the topic of ‘democracy in divided societies’ and is able to constantly link this knowledge to his empirical analysis. In Chapter 2, for example, he regrets the fact that essentialist, multiculturalist and nationalist normative approaches have underpinned most institutional solutions aiming at democratisation of post-conflict societies like Northern Ireland, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. He pleads instead for a ‘new paradigm’, whose outcome should be ‘integrative’ institutions based on interculturalism and an antiessentialist view of personal and collective identities. It is no surprise that a whole Chapter (3) is dedicated to ‘Balkan lessons’ in which Wilson explores the current institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Macedonia. He rightly criticizes the rigid power-sharing regime in Bosnia, based on the institutionalisation of its three ‘constituent peoples’ (Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs), and claims that this country represents ‘a failed state’ (p. 63). On the other hand, more flexible power-sharing arrangements in Macedonia have carefully avoided the institutionalisation of its two main ethno-linguistic groups (Albanians and Slav Macedonians). Yet the main focus is upon Northern Ireland. By referring to personal interviews and media reports, the author first (Chapters 4 and 5) reconstructs and reinterprets the dilemmas that decision makers on all sides faced in the 1970s and the 1990s negotiations. What conclusions and policy implications shall we draw from the case of Northern Ireland? In the final Chapter (6) Wilson pleads for ‘intercultural dialogue’