CRITERIA OF CLASSIFICATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES IN POST-DAYTON BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Abstract

The paper addresses the classification of the political parties in the postDayton Bosnia and Herzegovina according to the program-ideological criteria of the left and the right, as well as the division into ethnic and multiethnic parties. The paper pinpoints the applicable criteria based on which the relevant parties in B-H can be classified. The author starts with the hypothesis that B-H parties cannot be classified by program-ideological criterion typical for West European parties, because post-Dayton BiH parties stem from distinctive social cleavages of a particular historical epoch. The author has implemented a theoretical-epistemiological paradigm of historical institutionalism and the comparative method in order to identify social cleavages and critical junctures, which affected the establishment of parties and which provide favorable criteria for classification. In Western Europe, the social cleavages were created within critical junctures (national and industrial revolution), preceded by the state institutional framework. Only in the late 20th century, the process of subsequently democratized national states ended. However, in B-H, the opposed ethnicnational identities preceded the formation of the state, which consequently instigated arduous confrontation of the ethnic-national elites within critical junctures marked by the formation of the (national) state and its parallel democratization on the verge of the 21st century. In this regard, the author denies the possibility of the implementation of the ideological continuum left-right on parties in B-H. Concerning the parties’ classification into ethnic and multiethnic, the author denies the option of classifying parties into the multiethnic category. Regardless the multiethnic structure of the party leadership, its representatives and members, the author argues that “multiethnic” parties have dominantly monoethnic constituency and that they reflect ethnic polarisation towards other parties, therefore they cannot be classified as multiethnic, but ethnic parties. Ultimately, on the basis of two classification criteria (distribution of ethnic division and relations to institutional political framework), the author classifies parties into moderate and hardline ones. Such a typology identifies the parties’ character and their actions which are conditioned by the ethnically divided social structure and consociational institutional arrangement in a more informative and precise manner.