The role of civil society in the prevention of armed conflict: Partnership principle towards peace in BiH

By: Maria Theresa Maan-Bešić
Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
June 30, 2008

 “By 1991, when Croatia and Slovenia declared independence from the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Bosnia-Herzegovina”[1] was the most politically complicated nation in the former Yugoslavia. By April, “1992 Bosnia & Herzegovina existed independently in three separate parts, Republika Srpska, and the Croatian Community of Herzeg - Bosna.”[2] Because of this unique situation, “in addition to the primary conflict with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, a civil war erupted in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which most heavily affected the civilian population.”[3] When the “Dayton Peace Accords”[4] were agreed upon and the conflict in BiH came to an end in 1995, it and all of the nations of the former Yugoslavia were left with an incredibly challenging and necessary project dealing or facing the past[5] and working toward reconciliation in order to avoid future conflicts.

The civil society participation whose root cause lies with three inter-connected areas: Firstly, there is growing recognition of the role civil society organizations (CSOs) can play in responding, managing and preventing conflict as well as in post-conflict peace building. CSOs all have played important roles in responding to conflict. What becomes clear is that civil society is far more than public benefit nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Yet NGOs with technical-professional skills play an important role in providing services, promoting change and working with conflict.

Secondly, civil society representatives commented that the lack of public consultation by leaders of BiH's political factions is of concern because the police standards are uneven and the lack of harmonization undermines public confidence in the policing of law and order, especially in gender-related matters. In addition, it was generally noted in the interviews from one of the expert Lynne Alice, that reform is required to fulfill key EU policing principles; state-level legislative and budgetary competencies; ensure that there is no political interference in operational policing; and to enable establishment of police zones based on professional rather than entity criteria. Therefore, security, conflict prevention and peace building issues have primarily been the domain of the state and the military.

 Thirdly, CSOs must develop a potential or co-operation. In order to realize this potential we need to build on the first decade of conflict prevention experience, and develop reliable mechanisms for working together and define the responsibilities and competencies of the different sectors. CSO accountability, legitimacy and transparency have yet to be faced. In my point of view within the conflict prevention community itself, participants saw lack of co-ordination leading to duplication and competition, reducing the effectiveness of everyone’s efforts. Improved networking was seen as a partial solution, but the need for greater discipline cannot be ignored.

Fourthly, the institutional weaknesses and limited capacities of CSOs are well documented. These are often permeated by personality-centric, corporatist and clientelist political cultures, and by serious difficulties to update and to adapt their agendas to changing political environments, which seriously hinder their current ability to influence or implement conflict prevention policies.

 However, I would particularly note the importance of capacity building both for local civil society and for local populations generally. By organizing cross exchange conference can provide important opportunities for civil society, from different part of countries have shared same experience and to identify some concrete areas for dialogue in order to continue worked and identify priority issue.  Indeed, as my personal perspective there are short term solutions that civil society in BiH can work on the prevention of Armed Conflict’s can specifically achieve through :  

1. Strengthen the existing networks, national, regional and international conflict prevention and peace building.  
2. Provide more overview or any documents of the role of civil society in the prevention of armed conflict.
3. Identify different methods for interaction between civil society, the UN, national, regional organisations and governments.
4. Continue in developing national, regional and international action agendas for Conflict Prevention which to be agreed on with the United Nations.
5. Create an intensive research and theory that will help the conflict prevention community and NGOs to play its full part in international debate.

---

[1] Hereinafter, may be referred to as BiH. 

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid. pp. 15.

[4] “Summary of the Dayton Peace Agreement on Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Fact Sheet. Minnesota:  Office of the Spokesman, University of Minnesota. 30 Nov. 1995.  

< http://www.umn.edu/humanrts/icty/dayton/daytonsum.html>

[5]“Truth Now and Peace Forever.“ Facing the Past. IDC, Sarajevo. Dec. 2004. <http://www.idc.org.ba/project/facing_the_past.html>  

http://www.idc.org.ba/aboutus/books.html