The intersection of symbols, community engagement and peacebuilding – A Visit to Bosnia
Autor: Marjan Montazemi
My journey in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) started in 2002 when I volunteered for a year with the Mozaik Development Foundation. I was recruited to support the roll-out of their new program called the Living Heritage. This program was funded by the King Baudouin Foundation (KBF) from Belgium. Living Heritage was designed to build social and human capital. It did this “by helping people develop projects using local heritage and cultural resources to address identified community needs or aspirations” (Matarasso, June 2005, p. 5). At the time, I remembered being impressed by the power of cultural heritage in rallying communities as well as the ‘accompaniment’ approach embedded in the way the program was designed and managed.
In conversation with communities during the consultation phase, they often reminisced over tangible or intangible cultural or natural resources that had been discontinued or damaged as the result of the war and the post-conflict dynamics. They seemed eager to revive, rebuild, or restart lost heritage through repairing a physical site or relaunching a folkloric festival. Even though this program was not explicitly designed as a peacebuilding program, in essence, in my view, it contributed greatly to peacebuilding. It did so by providing safe spaces for people to come together and, engage in a dialogue over their priorities. The program facilitated community collaboration. In addition to seeking a grant from the foundation, the proposals were expected to reflect contributions of the community to the project.
I left BiH and Mozaik after the end of my one-year assignment with them but I often remembered and referred to this program in my subsequent work. In 2022, while studying theories of peace at UPEACE, I noted that the case of BiH was often cited in critical peace literature of Liberal Peace as an example of a top-down approach to peacebuilding with few references to cases of local peacebuilding. I wondered why the cases of local peacebuilding were not as prominent in the literature. With support from my advisor, I decided to focus my Master’s thesis on exploring the case of emancipatory peace practice in BiH. The case study reminded me once again the relevance of symbols, including cultural symbols, to the context of peace in Bosnia.
The context
The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), 1992-1995, is often qualified as a ruthless war marked by “the siege of cities, forced displacement, rapes of women, violation of social and economic rights, indiscriminate shelling and bombings, ethnic cleansing and genocide” (Mlinarević & Porobić, 2021). An internationally brokered peace known as the Dayton Accord or the Dayton Peace Agreement (DPA), signed in December 1995, marked the end of the war and violence. A decentralized BiH emerged from the DPA with two entities, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH) and the Republika Srpska (RS), ten cantons and one autonomous district based on a confederalism and consociational model (Tonge, 2014).
Whilst DPA successfully put an end to the violent conflict and resulted in reforms of security forces and the return of some of the people displaced, its critics blame it for conceding to ethno-nationalists to ‘construct an identity’ and ‘majority status’ ‘through war violence and crimes’ (Mlinarević & Porobić, 2021). Thus decades after the signing of the DPA, the country continues to be referred to as ‘divided’ (Puljek-Shank, 2016) (Duffy, 2022) a status that is fueled by national narratives perpetuated by some of the political leaders, the media and in school curricula. The use and placement of symbols continue to exacerbate these dynamics.
The power of symbols in promoting or countering peace
In peace psychology, significant importance is accorded to the power of symbols in post-conflict contexts. In BiH, as a relatively newly established independent state, the formation of the symbols, such as the flag, became a particularly complex process as highlighted by Pauker (2012, pp. 109-128). She points to the crucial role of symbols in statebuilding and importantly shaping national identity as ‘anchors’ or ‘emotional references’. She explains how the Bosnian flag, as it is today, resulted from a compromise, as other options available, that had a more historical relevance for Bosnians seemed to be divisive. Hence, the compromised version was ultimately pushed through by the Office of the High Representative (OHR)[1]. She further explains the challenge of religious buildings and symbols and how in some instances their sheer presence and the space they occupied had given rise to acts of violence by the other side(s). She admits, “In a society where all local and historical symbols have been (mis)appropriated for nationalist purposes, and have been used to perpetuate conflict through other means, a symbolic vocabulary which transcends ethnic divisions is desperately needed.” (Pauker, 2012, p. 127)
When I traveled to Bosnia and Herzegovina in June 2023 for the first phase of my thesis research, I joined a tour of Srebrenica[2]. While driving the 2-3 hour on the road between Sarajevo and Srebrenica and back, I was struck by how frequently, our tour guide would point to or draw attention to symbols when crossing entity lines, to flags, or symbols of ethno-nationalism, on border lines, but also on poles in front of homes or official buildings for example. As we were crossing the invisible line back into the Federation, the tour guide mentioned, “Here there is no flag to mark the entry back into the Federation as our flag is for the whole country”.
The presence of the Bosnian national flag outside of a Municipality building in one of the districts of the RS during a field trip in the North Eastern region was also noted by a Bosnian colleague with a tone of positive surprise. During my short stay, passing through small towns and large cities, I witnessed a few wedding celebrations. Without exception, there were at least one or two cars in the wedding procession with one flag or the other out of the window while honking in celebration. This drew my attention to the significance of symbols, such as the flag, in the everyday life of citizens, and how its use, location, and timing can send messages about where the person or the community stands. This has special resonance in a post-conflict country where identity, be it ‘ethnic’ or ‘religious’, was at the forefront of the conflict.
The significance of engagement with the community
In addition to the flag which is usually among the most visible symbols of nationhood, there is also the question of historical symbols and landmarks or the placing of symbols. In an article about the significance of public spaces in conflict transformation, in the case of transitional multi-ethnic societies, Davison and Tešan (2021) take issue with the narrative of the ‘intractability’ of ethnic tensions by referring to the pre-war coexistence, they highlight the importance of allowing people to engage in designing public spaces that are significant to them, places where the community, across their differences, would feel welcome to participate. They criticize top-down approaches taken towards reconstructing some of the iconic infrastructures that had global and local significance, such as the Old Bridge in Mostar. They point to the top-down approach in this process as having led to an ‘emotional detachment’ of the community from the result. They conclude that while the bridge has been physically rebuilt, the metaphoric bridge that is supposed to connect people from the two sides has not materialized.
In their writing, Davison and Tešan recognize the value of the engagement of citizens in shaping public spaces as a step towards healing and also reconnecting and building community. They provide examples of the communities rising to claim common spaces in Bosnia and Herzegovina such as the Banja Luka Park example. They highlight the deliberate approach of a private entity such as the World United College in Mostar, to renovate a space that has become iconic and in sync with the intent of the mission and mandate that brings diversity in one place. The mandate goes beyond the school space and is woven into the way the students interact with the community that hosts them or where they come from (Public Spaces and Conflict Transformation, 2021).
These conclusions reminded me of the Living Heritage Program, highlighted in the introduction of this article, that unfortunately discontinued in 2005. A review of this program (Matarasso, June 2005) highlighted the overall positive impact on most of the participating communities. One wonders what more could have been achieved with continued investment and engagement at scale and over time around similar initiatives.
For those engaged in peacebuilding, it is critical as a first step to understand the meaning of symbols and cultural references in general and in the context of cultural and ethnic diversity in particular. It is furthermore essential to understand how these symbols are used as drivers or disruptors of peace. The use and placement of symbols are also especially important in creating safe and inclusive spaces for people to come together to rebuild relationships. Finally, one cannot underestimate the value of community engagement and mobilization in the process of creating new symbols or rebuilding or re-invigorating lost heritage that can rally the community across its diversity. This is no easy task as demonstrated by the case of how the national Bosnian flag came about. As reflected in the concept of ‘peace formation’ (Richmond, 2013), peace requires time and there are processes that cannot be rushed but rather they have to be given the time and space to come to fruition. This is the only way that one can ensure a level of ownership and legitimacy that are key to creating conditions for lasting peace.
[1] “The Office of the High Representative (OHR) is an ad hoc international institution responsible for overseeing implementation of civilian aspects of the Peace Agreement ending the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The position of High Representative was created under the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, usually referred to as the Dayton Peace Agreement […]. The High Representative is working with the people and institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the international community to ensure that Bosnia and Herzegovina evolves into a peaceful and viable democracy on course for integration in Euro-Atlantic institutions.” Extracted from: https://www.ohr.int/about-ohr/general-information/ (December 29, 2023)
[2] “The name Srebrenica has become synonymous with those dark days in July 1995 when, in the first ever United Nations declared safe area, thousands of men and boys were systematically murdered and buried in mass graves. The victims, who were Muslim, were selected for death on the basis of their identity. This was the worst atrocity on European soil since the Second World War.” Extracted from: https://srebrenica.org.uk/ (December 29, 2023)
LIST OF REFERENCES
Davison, J., & Tešan, J. (2021). Public Spaces and Conflict Transformation. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, August 2021, Vol. 8, No. 3 (August 2021), , 244-261.
Duffy, M. (2022, 3 22). Civil Society Actors and the Challenge of Dark Heritage in Bosnia. . Retrieved from E-International Relations:/ https://www.e-ir.info/2022/03/21/civil-society-actors-and-the-challenge-of-dark-heritage-in-bosnia.
Hronesova, J. (2015, December 14). A flawed recipe for how to end a war and build a state: 20 years since the Dayton Agreement. LSE (London School of Economics) , pp. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/12/14/a-flawed-recipe-for-how-to-end-a-war-and-build-a-state-20-years-since-the-dayton-agreement/ (accessed on December 6, 2022).
Kalyvas, S. N., & Sambanis, N. (2005). Bosnia’s Civil War – origins and violence dynamics. In T. W. Bank, Understanding Civil War – Evidence and Analysis – (pp. 191-229). http://www.jstor.com/stable/resrep02484.11 accessed on March 22, 2023: World Bank -.
Matarasso, F. (June 2005). Living Heritage – Bosnia and Herzegovina – Programme Report 2002-2005. https://parliamentofdreams.com/research/programmes/2001-05-living-heritage-se-europe (accessed February 2023): King Baudouin Foundation; Mozaik Community development Foundation.
Mlinarević, G., & Porobić, N. (2021). The Peace that is Not – 25 years of experimenting with Peace in Bosnia and Herzegonia – Feminist critique of Neoliberal Approaches to Peacebuilding. wilpf.org: 2021 Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (shared by the author).
Paris, R. (2004). At War’s End – Building Peace after Civil Conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pauker, I. (2012). War Through Other Means: Examining the Role of Symbols in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In O. Simic, Z. Volcic, & C. R. Philpot, Peace Psychology in the Balkans, Dealing with a Violent Past while Building Peace (pp. 109-128). New York: Springer.
Puljek-Shank, R. &. (2016). Civil society in a divided society: Linking legitimacy and ethnicness of civil society organizations in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Cooperation and Conflict, 2017, Vol. 52(2) ,, pp. 184-202 accessed on June 17, 2023 https://radboud.academia.edu/RandallPuljekShank.
Richmond, O. P. (2013, November). Peace Formation and Local Infrastructures for Peace. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political , Vol. 38, No. 4 – Sage Publications, pp. 271-287 https://www.jstor.org/stable/24569417 accessed 2 May 2023.
Tonge, J. (2014). Confederalism and Consociation in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In Comparative Peace Processes (pp. Chapter 7, 134-153). Polity.
Author short Bio
Marjan Montazemi has more than two decades of experience in peace and development. She has worked in senior positions with the United Nations and as staff and volunteer with NGOs (international and local) in post-conflict contexts, including in West Africa, Western Balkans, Central Asia, etc. She has an MA in International Peace Studies from the University for Peace (2024) and an MA in Political Science and International Relations from York University in Canada.
