Ethnic Controversy

Thus, the changes indicate more than just political ideologies; they also reflect ethnic matters of a tripartite division (Figure 1). Those responsible for renaming the streets were represented in an elite “15-member commission consisting of artists, writers and historians,” (Tortsi) which consisted mostly of Bosniaks. One of their main objectives was to take down old Cyrillic signs and all street signs. In the process, they removed many avenues with Marxist or Communist titles and replaced them with names intended to mirror one Bosnian identity. However, the position of Bosniaks within the commission deserves questioning in regards to the new nationalist agenda. At times, it may seem more a conscious effort by Bosniaks to remove historical traces of one ethnic group (the Serbs) by amplifying distinctions between Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks, thereby removing “the previous glorification of Serbian history in the street names… and [creating] symbolic emergent awareness of a history hidden within the former Yugoslavian Federation,” (Robinson). In other words, is the commission may be acting in the interest of Bosniaks and not in the interest of Bosnia as a whole? While Serbian territorial aggrandizement is not necessarily justifiable, neither is the same for Bosniaks.

Figure 1. Ethnic diversity in Bosnia–Herzegovina from a 1991 population census (Robinson et al.).

The Dayton Accord, which endorsed the partitioning of Bosnia, has encouraged Bosnian Muslim politicians to “embark on their own nationalist agenda as part of a dual process of establishing a new state and forging a Bosnian nation,” (Robinson et al.). In some ways, promoting this Bosnian nationalism can generate a level playing field, but taken too far can incite antipathy as one (Bosniak) community gains prominence and the others diminish. For now, though, much of the land still rests in Serb and Croat control.

Additional thoughts or comments are warmly welcome. Please visit the blog page.