We kindly inform you that, as long as the subject affiliation of our 300.000+ articles is in progress, you might get unsufficient or no results on your third level or second level search. In this case, please broaden your search criteria.
Local communities (mjesne zajednice – hereafter LCs) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereafter BiH) have for a long time been perceived as a relic of the country’s Yugoslav past. The sub-municipal institutions were established in former Yugoslavia as hubs of community self-government, serving as venues of citizen engagement around community problems. However, after the former socialist political system was dismantled following the 1992-1995 war and new institutions were installed, not much attention had been paid to local communities. As of recently, LCs have been receiving increasing attention, especially of international and non-governmental organizations. As legally recognized sub-municipal institutions, they are seen as having potential to foster citizen engagement. A 2012 survey of Centres for Civic Initiatives (CCI), administered in 14 municipalities in BiH, shows that respondents were the most aware of the possibility to participate through the LC (74.6%) out of a number of other participation mechanisms at the local level, and that the LC is among the most frequently used participatory mechanisms (33.2%). Although a 2009 World Bank study survey data from 20 municipalities showed that most citizens did not have the experience of engagement in their community activities, of those respondents who did, 81% described LC council meetings as the most useful activity of participation. Thus, it is not surprising that a number of projects to date, implemented by different organizations, have focused on strengthening LCs. Some initiatives have pushed for a change of their legal status and have advocated for a minimum of standards for local community operations through local acts, while others have worked on strengthening local community capacities. However, a number of obstacles to local community functioning remain. Some authors highlight as challenges, inter alia, the lack of formal competences of these bodies, their missing financial autonomy and inconsistent budgetary allocations from local government to LCs, as well as the influence of political parties on the elections of LC councilors and presidents. The World Bank study shows vast differences in local respondents’ awareness of, and participation in their respective LC activities between different municipalities, signaling that, depending on the locality, LCs may be more or less active, and may take on different roles. A 2013 study of communal services in the city of Sarajevo showcases both the potential of urban LCs to serve as a link between government and residents and the discontent with LCs that residents expressed, stemming from a perceived lack of LCs’ efficiency and inability to help citizens relay their problems to higher levels of government. Understanding the functioning of LCs in BiH, as well as the context in which these institutions operate, is challenged by a lack of comprehensive research on the subject. Studies on local communities in BiH to date have offered only a partial glimpse into the different aspects of LC operations in practice. No baseline information has been collected, including reliable data on the number of LCs. There have generally been no official data or estimates published on the number of LCs in BiH, and such data are not collected by the statistical offices. In general, empirical studies on the subject are few, with most analyses to date focusing on the legal framework regulating LC work. The research presented in this study was conducted in order to systematically learn about the countrywide practices of LCs in BiH, and to offer broad recommendations for improving local community work in BiH. Given the lack of baseline information on their functioning, it is difficult to analyze the work of LCs in BiH and to hypothesize in a meaningful way what contextual factors may be influencing their work. Provided these difficulties, the research is largely exploratory, seeking to gather insights and create descriptive accounts of the operations and functions of LCs. The report is structured as follows: The next, second, chapter features an overview of concepts related to sub-municipal and neighborhood-level governance, followed by a chapter on comparative practices of LCs in the countries of former Yugoslavia. In the fourth and fifth chapters, the analytical framework and research design are laid out. In chapter 6, research results are presented, structured according to key aspects of local community functioning. A conclusion and recommendations follow.
More...
Građani Bosne i Hercegovine (BiH) mogu biti razjedinjeni po mnogo osnova, ali su uglavnom saglasni u jednom: velika većina ne vjeruje institucijama vlasti, političkim partijama niti izabranim političkim zvaničnicima. Ubjedljivo najlošije kotiraju političke partije: samo 14,1% građana ima veliko povjerenje ili dosta povjerenja u političke partije dok cijelih 83,9% građana nema previše povjerenja ili uopće nema povjerenja u njih.
More...
Open Government Partnership (OGP) aims to encourage governments worldwide to become more transparent and more accountable to their citizens, “with the ultimate goal of improving the quality of governance, as well as the quality of services that citizens receive.” This multilateral initiative was formally started on September 20, 2011, when the governments of Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Mexico, Norway, the Philippines, United States of America and United Kingdom endorsed the Open Government Declaration. Meanwhile, the number of states participating in the initiative grew to 60, including all the Western Balkans countries apart from Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and Kosovo. The initiative is overseen by a Steering Committee, which is comprised of government and civil society representatives.
More...
Citizen participation in local level decision-making processes is not a novelty in the region of former Yugoslavia. The subject had received international attention during the 1970s, when innovative participatory institutions and practices in Yugoslav municipalities were making their way into scholarly texts discussing solutions to the problems of participatory democracy. Yet despite – or maybe because of – the apparent historical legacy of citizen participation in local-level decision-making, current accounts of local-level practices of citizen engagement appear to be wanting. Research conducted in Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereafter: BiH), Croatia and Montenegro, three countries considered in this report, points to weaknesses in the way participatory processes are conducted. Despite variations in practice, the general impression is that citizens are inadequately informed about possibilities for participation and may lack feedback on outcomes of participatory processes; that their ability to influence decision-making is perceived to be questionable; or that local administrations lack capacities and expertise for organizing well-structured participatory events. The motivation of citizens to engage in decision-making appears to be hampered by their perception that chances to do so are limited and that official channels for addressing their problems and needs are absent. Such findings are especially telling considering that citizen participation has become a key word in the jargon of national and local governments, as well as international organizations that have in the past twenty years devoted significant efforts to policy development and capacity building processes in the area of citizen engagement. To date, little attention has been paid to the factors that potentially influence participatory processes and that may help explain the similarities and differences in practice in these three countries since their democratization. Considering an enabling policy environment to be such a factor, this report seeks to inquire whether legal and institutional frameworks for citizen participation in BiH, Croatia, and Montenegro enable or discourage citizen participation in decision-making in local affairs. This factor appears especially important given the substantial effort vested in participation policies and programs by domestic and international actors. At the same time, we recognize the importance of other contextual factors for effective participation, such as the level of democratization, tradition of citizen engagement or the capacities of different actors to encourage participatory practices, but do not examine them at any length in here. This report is a result of research conducted for the project “Effective and sustainable citizen participation” in order to inform the creation of operational documents for citizen participation in local decision-making processes in BiH, Croatia and Montenegro. The ultimate purpose of the report is to provide a systematic overview of legal arrangements for citizen participation in the three countries, so that operational documents could be drafted in such a way as to correspond with the existing legal and institutional frameworks. Besides the needs of the project, the comparison of these three countries is also conceptually and methodologically motivating because they recently were a part of the same legal, political and cultural whole in the joint administrative organization of the former Yugoslavia, but have in the past twenty years had different reform paths, as suggested by their different EU accession prospects. These differences and similarities between countries form an interesting basis for analysis of legal and institutional frameworks for citizen participation, especially having in mind the rather bleak findings on citizen participation in practice. Furthermore, an almost total absence of comparative studies on legal frameworks and institutional practices with respect to citizen participation at the local level in the three countries is an additional reason for providing an overview such as this one. Although its theoretical and explanatory value might be limited by a primarily descriptive approach and methodological limitations (see below, Chapters 2 and 3), this report attempts to offer a sound systematic basis for further studies on this largely neglected topic in the region of Western Balkans. In that respect, the ambition of this text is to provide a broad overview of key characteristics, trends and processes in respect to the evolving legal frameworks and institutional practices for citizen participation in BiH, Croatia and Montenegro, and to point out key issues and questions, rather than to offer explanations and answers. Special emphasis will be placed on correspondence between legal frameworks in the three countries on one side, and relevant international norms and standards, notably those of the Council of Europe, on the other. This report begins with a conceptual framework of citizen participation in Chapter 2, followed by the analytical approach and methodology in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 provides an overview of local governance and a synthesis of results on citizen participation in practice in these three countries to date, and Chapter 5 contains an analysis of the enabling and disabling aspects of the institutional and legal frameworks for citizen participation. The findings of this overview are discussed in the concluding Chapter 6, with recommendations for the institutionalization of local-level citizen participation processes and with suggestions for further inquiry.
More...
The issue of participation of members of national minorities, as part of the constitutional category of “Others”, in the political and public life of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) has been a recurring topic of concern of international organizations and institutions. As these international actors eloquently show, ethnic power-sharing arrangements related to the elaborate mechanisms of collective political equality of the three dominant ethnic groups in the state (Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks - constitutionally termed as constituent peoples) have been one of the main obstacles to equal participation of members of national minorities and other persons not belonging to constituent peoples in public affairs. Discrimination and exclusion of the heterogeneous constitutional category of “Others” in BiH, including persons belonging to national minorities, indeed takes place in a variety of institutions and settings. The most cited example of exclusion of minority ethno-cultural groups from public affairs is the ethnically exclusivist Constitution of BiH, which prevents, inter alia, persons belonging to minorities from being elected to the three-member Bosnian Presidency and delegated to the upper chamber of the Bosnian Parliament. However, these explicit, constitutionally entrenched mechanisms of exclusion seem to have completely obscured the more complex and subtle ones operating at the level of laws and policies related to decision-making processes at the local, municipal level. While such exclusion of “Others” is a matter of discrimination, the exclusion from political life of one category from this heterogeneous group – national minorities – is a violation of another important right – the right of persons belonging to minorities to participate in public affairs, in accordance with the more recent international minority rights instruments. Namely, during the last decade of the past century, new international group and minority rights instruments have been devised, recognizing and affirming the identity and status of minorities in national constitutional and political systems. A particularly important, even ground-breaking feature of these new international legal developments is the explicit recognition of the right of minorities to participate in public affairs. This new standard of political participation of minorities is formulated as them having a say in public “matters affecting them”. Based on these new standards, regional human rights institutions - most notably, the Advisory Committee (hereinafter AC) on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (hereinafter FCNM) have interpreted the minority right to collective political participation as a rather “strong” right and started implementing it in unqualified terms, translating the minority cultural identity directly into the political plane. This is somewhat surprising, as even the more optimistic experts have initially been skeptical of the potential and reach of the FCNM, not least because its status as a framework convention. However, as some influential commentators have argued, the AC on the FCNM has proven to be very successful in ensuring collective political participation of minorities in accordance with the relevant provisions of this instrument. State reports and the opinions of the AC issued under FCNM, as well as various other policy documents of European institutions, suggest that the concept of political participation of minorities already has deep roots in the pan-European polity. Effective participation of minorities in public affairs is a broad concept. First, it can be interpreted as participation in a narrow sense: having representatives in elected bodies at different levels of governance, in the executive, or in advisory bodies, committees or public councils. Participation can also mean membership in “semi-state bodies, such as chambers of commerce and industry, in bodies representing agriculture and labor, in social insurance bodies, in trade unions, employers’ unions and tripartite bodies, and in boards of public broadcasting companies.” Additionally, participation in public affairs can include various forms of autonomy, ranging from territorial and federal arrangements to cultural autonomy. The practice of the AC on the FCNM, however, has shown that the focus is mostly placed on representation of minorities in elected bodies and on various forms of consultation, whereas mechanisms of participation in the executive, public administration, judicial and other bodies are almost neglected. In its last Opinion on BiH, the AC on the FCNM has confirmed that this dual avenue of representation and consultation of minorities at different levels of governance has not been adequately entrenched in the political system and practice of BiH. This research project examines precisely how this important emerging right plays out in the complex legal system of BiH and the equally complex decision-making practice in the country, focusing on the local level of governance. In other words, this study examines mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion of minorities in decision-making processes at the level of municipal governance. It is important to note that even persons belonging to constituent peoples can also in certain (sub-national) contexts be in minority situations and as such be considered minorities for the purpose of international minority rights instruments. However, according to the BiH Law on the Protection of Rights of Persons Belonging to National Minorities, a minority is defined as “part of the population-citizens of BiH who do not belong to any of the three constituent peoples, and is composed of persons of the same or similar ethnic origin, the same or similar tradition, custom, belief, language, culture and spirituality, and closely related history and other traits.” This research project focuses on national minorities in the latter sense only. The structure of the study is as follows: first, the conceptual and international legal framework is briefly elaborated. Following these introductory considerations, we examine both the legal framework and the practice of participation of persons belonging to minorities in decision-making at the local level in BiH. Although political representation and consultation mechanisms are treated separately, and in different chapters of the study, we are aware of the interconnections between the two mechanisms, which figurate prominently throughout the study.
More...
Pitanje participacije pripadnika nacionalnih manjina, kao dijela ustavne kategorije ’ostalih’, u političkom i javnom životu Bosne i Hercegovine (BiH), redovno izaziva zabrinutost međunarodnih organizacija i institucija. Kako ovi međunarodni akteri rječito navode, etnička raspodjela vlasti kroz složene mehanizme kolektivne političke jednakosti tri dominantne etničke grupe u državi (Srba, Hrvata i Bošnjaka – koji se u Ustavu nazivaju konstitutivnim narodima) jedna je od glavnih prepreka za ravnopravnu participaciju u javnim poslovima pripadnika nacionalnih manjina i drugih osoba koje ne pripadaju konstitutivnim narodima. Diskriminacija i isključenost heterogene ustavne kategorije ’ostalih’ u BiH, koja uključuje i pripadnike nacionalnih manjina, zaista su evidentni u različitim institucijama i oblastima. Primjer isključenosti manjinskih etnokulturnih grupa iz javnih poslova koji se najčešće spominje jeste ekskluzivno etnički koncipiran Ustav Bosne i Hercegovine, koji, između ostalog, sprječava izbor pripadnika manjina u tročlano Predsjedništvo BiH i njihovo delegiranje u Dom naroda Parlamentarne skupštine BiH. Međutim, čini se da su ove izričite mehanizme isključenosti koji su ugrađeni u Ustav potpuno zasjenili složeniji i suptilniji mehanizmi na nivou zakona i politika koji se odnose na postupke donošenja odluka na lokalnom, općinskom nivou. Iako takva isključenost ’ostalih’ zasigurno predstavlja diskriminaciju, isključenost iz političkog života jedne kategorije iz ove heterogene grupe – kategorije nacionalnih manjina – predstavlja kršenje drugog važnog prava – prava pripadnika nacionalnih manjina da učestvuju u političkom životu, u skladu s novijim međunarodnim instrumentima manjinskih prava. Naime, tokom posljednje decenije prošlog vijeka, doneseni su novi međunarodni instrumenti grupnih i manjinskih prava, kojima se priznaje i potvrđuje identitet i status manjina u nacionalnim ustavnim i političkim sistemima. Iznimno važna, čak prijelomna osobina ovih novih međunarodnih pravnih standarda jest izričito priznanje prava manjina da učestvuju u javnim poslovima. Ovaj novi standard političke participacije manjina formuliran je kao njihovo pravo da se očituju o javnim „pitanjima koja ih se tiču”. Na osnovu ovih novih standarda, regionalne institucije za ljudska prava, među njima prvenstveno Savjetodavni odbor (u daljnjem tekstu: SO) za Okvirnu konvenciju za zaštitu nacionalnih manjina (u daljnjem tekstu: Okvirna konvencija), su interpretirali pravo manjina na kolektivnu političku participaciju kao prilično „snažno” pravo, koje su stoga počele primjenjivati bezuvjetno, prenoseći manjinski kulturni identitet direktno u domen politike. Ovo je donekle iznenađujuće, jer su čak i optimističniji stručnjaci isprva bili skeptični u pogledu mogućnosti i dometa Okvirne konvencije, između ostalog, zbog njenog statusa okvirnog međunarodnog instrumenta. Međutim, kako tvrde pojedini utjecajni komentatori, SO za Okvirnu konvenciju pokazao se veoma uspješnim u osiguranju kolektivne političke participacije manjina u skladu sa odgovarajućim odredbama ovog instrumenta. Državni izvještaji i mišljenja SO u kontekstu okvirne konvencije, kao i razni drugi politički dokumenti evropskih institucija, sugeriraju da se koncept političke participacije manjina već duboko ukorijenio u panevropski političko-pravni poredak. Efikasna participacija manjina u javnim poslovima širok je koncept. Prvo, ona se može tumačiti kao participacija u užem smislu, kao postojanje predstavnika u izabranim tijelima na različitim nivoima vlasti, u izvršnim organima, ili u savjetodavnim tijelima, odborima i javnim vijećima. Participacija također može značiti članstvo u „poludržavnim tijelima, kao što su privredne i industrijske komore, u tijelima koja predstavljaju privredu i rad, u tijelima socijalnog osiguranja, u sindikatima, udruženjima poslodavaca i tripartitnim tijelima, te u odborima javnih radiotelevizijskih preduzeća”. Pored toga, participacija u javnim poslovima može obuhvatati različite oblike autonomije – od teritorijalnih i federalnih aranžmana do kulturne autonomije. Praksa SO za Okvirnu konvenciju, međutim, pokazuje da je pažnja ponajviše usmjerena na predstavljanje manjina u izabranim tijelima i u različitim oblicima konsultacija, dok su mehanizmi participacije u izvršnoj vlasti, u javnoj upravi, te u pravosudnim i drugim organima gotovo zanemareni. U svom posljednjem Mišljenju o Bosni i Hercegovini, Savjetodavni odbor za Okvirnu konvenciju potvrdio je da ovaj dvostruki mehanizam predstavljanja i konsultacija s manjinama na različitim nivoima vlasti nije na odgovarajući način zaživio u političkom sistemu i praksi u Bosni i Hercegovini. U ovom istraživačkom projektu upravo se istražuje koliko se ovo važno pravo koje se razvija provodi u složenom pravnom sistemu Bosne i Hercegovine i u podjednako složenoj praksi odlučivanja u državi, s fokusom na lokalni nivo vlasti. Drugim riječima, u ovoj studiji se istražuju mehanizmi isključenosti i uključenosti manjina u postupke odlučivanja na nivou općinskih vlasti. Važno je istaći da se čak i pripadnici konstitutivnih naroda u određenom kontekstu (tj. u pojedinim dijelovima države) mogu nalaziti u situaciji manjine i da se kao takvi mogu smatrati manjinama u smislu međunarodnih instrumenata manjinskih prava. Međutim, prema Zakonu o zaštiti prava pripadnika nacionalnih manjina BiH, manjina je definirana kao „dio stanovništva – državljana BiH koji ne pripadaju nijednom od tri konstitutivna naroda, a sačinjavaju je ljudi istog ili sličnog etničkog porijekla, iste ili slične tradicije, običaja, vjerovanja, jezika, kulture i duhovnosti i bliske ili srodne povijesti i drugih obilježja”. Ovaj istraživački projekat bavi se nacionalnim manjinama samo u ovom drugom smislu. U strukturi ove studije, najprije je ukratko izložen konceptualni i međunarodnopravni okvir. Nakon ovih uvodnih razmatranja, istražujemo pravni okvir, kao i praksu participacije pripadnika manjina u odlučivanju na lokalnom nivou u BiH. Iako su političko predstavljanje i mehanizmi konsultacija analizirani odvojeno, i u različitim poglavljima, svjesni smo međusobne povezanosti ova dva mehanizma, koji se prepliću kroz cijelu studiju.
More...
In the European context, the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (hereinafter: Framework Convention or FCNM) from 1998 is the chief treaty dealing with minority rights, and it has been adopted by more than forty state parties across the continent. The Framework Convention deals with the subject of participation of national minorities in public affairs as part of Article 15; however, the text itself is ambiguous and offers little guidance on its practical implementation. In response to the growing recognition of participation in public affairs as an important aspect of minority rights, in 2008 the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (hereinafter Advisory Committee or AC) - the expert body that monitors the implementation of the Convention - issued a detailed commentary. This Commentary on the Effective Participation of Persons Belonging to National Minorities in Cultural, Social and Economic Life and in Public Affairs offers its interpretation of fundamental standards for the realization of Article 15, reflecting its findings from the state reporting procedure. The Advisory Committee has without doubt made valuable contributions to the awareness of minority participation in decision-making and to the establishment of standards in this area. This report analyzes both its Commentary and the most current reporting cycles from each state party to the Framework Convention in order to elucidate the meaning of effective participation in decision-making and to identify models of best practice. As a framework encapsulating institutional mechanisms of participation and common issues that must be taken into consideration in designing them, the report looks at coordination between the mechanisms and on different levels of governance, including the local level, which has been prone to neglect in most of the relevant scholarship. Apart from its general purpose, the report particularly intends to promote and offer guidance for implementing minority inclusive governance in Bosnia and Herzegovina and other Balkan states. This latter dimension of orientation of this report is due to the often noted lack of understanding of the concept of political participation of minorities and often uncertain and winding routes towards truly multicultural governance that these states, to varying extents, are currently taking. The analysis also recognizes two factors that affect the work of the Advisory Committee in standard-setting and evaluating state practice. The first is the broad margin of appreciation afforded to state parties in designing systems of minority political participation as well as the individualized approach of the Advisory Committee, which takes contextual specificities (e.g. current level of minority inclusion, historical and socio-political factors) into account when evaluating these systems. The second factor is the Advisory Committee’s limited mandate, as the agenda of the reporting procedure is for the most part set up by the state parties themselves: the AC relies on the cooperation of states and lacks an enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance with its recommendations. This study therefore investigates the impact of these factors on standard-setting and on its individual opinions on state parties’ implementation of minority political participation. It incorporates illustrative examples from the state reporting procedure to highlight and further elucidate standards; however the analysis also aims to quell some of the optimism towards the AC’s work in light of noticeable gaps, influenced in part by the limitations to its mandate. Following the introductory section, Chapter 1 examines criteria commonly used by states to determine the existence of national minorities under domestic law against the AC’s prescriptions. The very term “national minority” is a primary example of the margin of appreciation, as there exists no common, universally accepted definition in the Convention. Despite this leeway, the AC stipulates basic principles by which state parties should abide; namely, this means maintaining an inclusive and flexible approach in granting national minority status. Arbitrary exclusion or differentiation between groups based on ancestral presence in a country, territorial ties to a geographic area, and numerical size are seen as unjustified by the AC. Importantly, it also insists that citizenship should not be grounds on which to exclude persons belonging to national minorities (although few states have incorporated this principle), as many articles of the FCNM, including Article 15, do not require a citizenship dimension. In particular, the AC is resolute that citizenship should not be a requirement to vote or run for office on local and regional levels. The findings of this section resound in subsequent chapters of the report, as official recognition as a national minority is directly linked to entitlements to special participatory rights reserved for persons belonging to national minorities. The next chapter analyzes the tripartite institutional structure of minority participation in political affairs. This includes representation in elected positions such as in parliament and local councils; consultative or advisory bodies; and employment in public administration. Representation in elected bodies and positions is generally the most direct means for minority representatives to take an active part in decision-making. Some of the principal measures that may be used to increase the representation of national minorities in elected bodies include allowing minority-specific political parties, electoral designs with separate voting lists, threshold exemptions, quotas and reserved seats, and special voting rights such as minority veto powers. Consultative bodies are another institutional mechanism, serving as forums where minority representatives may engage in dialogue with each other and governmental authorities. These bodies have an advisory function and may initiate and amend legislation affecting national minorities. Employment in public administration is another means of including minorities in public affairs, and the recruitment of national minorities has significant implications on raising general awareness of minorities in the state amongst majority and minority populations, and inspiring trust in government institutions from persons belonging to national minorities. Beyond these three principal mechanisms, the AC calls on specialized governmental bodies within the executive, such as ministries or departments for minority rights, to coordinate, monitor, and mainstream minority issues on all levels of governance. Specialized governmental bodies are tasked with coordinating a state’s policy towards national minorities and are in charge of monitoring implementation and results, as well as liaising with minority representatives, minority organizations, and relevant bodies where minorities participate in order to facilitate communication. In this sense, specialized governmental bodies mainstream minority issues throughout the entire institutional framework and state apparatus. Lastly, decentralized forms of government such as regional autonomy and self-government can be a useful means to give national minorities control over their interests, especially on local and regional levels. The second part of Chapter 2 elaborates upon overlapping issues concerning the effectiveness of the institutional mechanisms. This includes the legitimacy and pluralism of national minority representatives and additional interlocutors (such as relevant NGO representatives, scholars, or other experts) to advocate on behalf of persons belonging to national minorities; the range of issues beyond culture, education, and language in which representatives may be involved in decision-making, including budget allocation; their impact and voice in decision-making, which highlights the importance of being able to substantively participate as opposed to having a mere presence in governmental bodies; and mainstreaming minority issues into state policies and governmental institutions. These issues form the core standards of participation and must be incorporated into the structure of a state’s institutional framework to ensure that participatory mechanisms have the effect of empowering persons belonging to national minorities to participate in decision-making. These standards are then questioned in Chapter 3, as the study evaluates the consistency of the Advisory Committee's performance. One foremost gap is the disjointedness between explicit criticisms and amorphous recommendations that the AC issues in its opinions. Chapter 3 links the two previously-mentioned factors - margin of appreciation and individualized approach; limited mandate and reactive approach - to account for some of this disparity. Observations of additional gaps are also explored, including: common criticisms towards states with different practices; inconsistencies and leniency; promising alternative methods for coordination and mainstreaming of minority policy displayed by selected states that contrast with the prescriptions of the AC’s own Commentary; and inconsistencies in the Advisory Committee’s reaction towards trade-offs whereby a state party displays unequal development in the three types of participatory institutions or in different levels of governance.
More...
U evropskom kontekstu, najvažniji ugovor koji se bavi pravima manjina je Okvirna konvencija za zaštitu nacionalnih manjina (Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities) (u daljnjem tekstu: Okvirna konvencija ili FCNM) Vijeća Evrope iz 1998. godine, koju je usvojilo više od 40 država članica širom kontinenta. Okvirna konvencija se u članu 15. bavi pitanjem participacije nacionalnih manjina u javnim poslovima, ali je sam tekst neodređen i nudi premalo pojašnjenja za praktičnu implementaciju. Kao odgovor na sve veće priznanje participacije u javnim poslovima kao važnog aspekta prava manjina, stručno tijelo koje prati implementaciju Konvencije – Savjetodavni odbor za Okvirnu konvenciju za zaštitu nacionalnih manjina (u daljnjem tekstu: Savjetodavni odbor ili SO) – 2008. godine je objavio detaljan Komentar o efikasnoj participaciji pripadnika nacionalnih manjina u kulturnom, društvenom i ekonomskom životu i javnim poslovima (Commentary on the Effective Participation of Persons Belonging to National Minorities in Cultural, Social and Economic Life and in Public Affairs), koji nudi tumačenje osnovnih standarda za provedbu člana 15. i predstavlja odraz izvještaja koje podnose države. Nema sumnje da je Savjetodavni odbor dao veliki doprinos podizanju svijesti o participaciji manjina u odlučivanju i uspostavljanju standarda u ovoj oblasti. U ovom izvještaju analizira se njegov Komentar, kao i najaktuelniji ciklusi podnošenja izvještaja svake države članice Okvirne konvencije, kako bi se pojasnilo značenje efikasne participacije u odlučivanju i kako bi se identifikovali modeli najbolje prakse. Kao okvir koji obuhvata institucionalne mehanizme participacije i zajednička pitanja koja treba uzeti u obzir prilikom njihovog oblikovanja, ovaj izvještaj posvećuje pažnju koordinaciji među mehanizmima, te koordinaciji na različitim nivoima vlasti, uključujući lokalni nivo, koji je često zanemaren u stručnim analizama. Pored ove opće svrhe, poseban je cilj izvještaja da posluži za pojašnjenje, promoviranje i pružanje smjernica u implementaciji vladavine koja uključuje nacionalne manjine u Bosni i Hercegovini i drugim zemljama Balkana. Ova druga dimenzija izvještaja rezultat je često primijećenog nerazumijevanja koncepta političke participacije manjina, te često neizvjesnih i kompliciranih puteva ka istinski multietničkoj vlasti kojima ove zemlje, u različitoj mjeri, trenutno idu. U analizi se također uvažavaju dva postojeća faktora koja utječu na rad Savjetodavnog odbora u postavljanju standarda i u ocjenjivanju prakse država. Prvi je široka sloboda procjene koja se daje državama u oblikovanju sistema političke participacije manjina, kao i individualizirani pristup Savjetodavnog odbora, koji uzima u obzir specifične kontekste različitih država (kao što su trenutni nivo uključenosti manjina, historijski i društveno-politički faktori) prilikom ocjenjivanja ovih sistema. Drugi je faktor ograničeni mandat Savjetodavnog odbora, jer o dnevnom redu u proceduri podnošenja izvještaja u najvećoj mjeri odlučuju same države potpisnice, a SO se oslanja na saradnju država i ne posjeduje mehanizam provedbe kojim bi osigurao ispunjavanje svojih preporuka. Ova studija, dakle, istražuje i utjecaj tih faktora na postavljanje standarda i na pojedinačna mišljenja SO-a o implementaciji političke participacije manjina koju provode države potpisnice. Ona nudi slikovite primjere iz postupka podnošenja izvještaja samih država kako bi se istaknuli i dodatno pojasnili relevantni standardi. Međutim, analiza također ima za cilj da reducira dio optimizma prema radu SO-a u svjetlu primjetnih nedostataka, na koje dijelom utječu i postojeća ograničenja njegovog mandata. Nakon uvodnog dijela, u prvom poglavlju se ispituju kriteriji koje države obično koriste za priznavanje postojanja nacionalnih manjina prema domaćim zakonima i porede se sa uputama SO-a. Sam termin „nacionalna manjina” pravi je primjer slobode tumačenja u pojedinim zemljama, jer u Konvenciji ne postoji zajednička, općeprihvaćena definicija. Uprkos ovom slobodnom prostoru, SO predviđa osnovne principe kojih države članice treba da se pridržavaju a koji se odnose na zauzimanje inkluzivnog i fleksibilnog pristupa u dodjeljivanju statusa nacionalne manjine. SO smatra neopravdanim proizvoljno isključenje ili razlikovanje grupa na osnovu njihovog dugotrajnog prisustva u zemlji, teritorijalnih veza sa geografskim područjem i brojčane zastupljenosti. Ono što je važno jeste da Odbor insistira i na tome da državljanstvo ne treba predstavljati osnov za isključivanje osoba koje pripadaju nacionalnim manjinama (mada su malobrojne države koje su usvojile ovaj princip), jer mnogi dijelovi Konvencije, uključujući član 15, ne zahtijevaju dimenziju državljanstva. SO je naročito odlučan u tome da državljanstvo ne treba predstavljati uslov za glasanje ili kandidiranje na izborima na lokalnom i regionalnom nivou. Nalazi ove sekcije imaju odjeka i u narednim poglavljima izvještaja, jer je zvanično priznanje nacionalnih manjina direktno povezano sa dodjeljivanjem posebnih participatornih prava rezerviranih za pripadnike nacionalnih manjina. U narednom poglavlju analizira se trodijelna institucionalna struktura participacije nacionalnih manjina u političkim aktivnostima. Ona obuhvata predstavljanje u kontekstu izabranih funkcija, kao što su one u parlamentima i lokalnim vijećima, konsultativna ili savjetodavna tijela, te zapošljavanje u javnoj upravi. Predstavljanje u kontekstu izabranih tijela i pozicija obično je najdirektniji način na koji predstavnici manjina aktivno učestvuju u odlučivanju. Među ključnim mjerama koje se mogu koristiti za povećanje prisustva pripadnika nacionalnih manjina u izabranim tijelima jesu: dozvola djelovanja političkih stranaka manjina, oblik izbora sa odvojenim glasačkim listama, izuzeća od izbornog praga, kvote i rezervirana mjesta, te posebna prava kao što je pravo manjinskog veta. Konsultativna tijela još su jedan institucionalni mehanizam i služe kao mjesto gdje predstavnici manjina mogu učestvovati u međusobnom dijalogu kao i u dijalogu sa organima vlasti. Ova tijela imaju savjetodavnu funkciju i mogu predlagati i dopunjavati zakone koji se tiču nacionalnih manjina. Zaposlenje u javnoj upravi još je jedan način uključivanja manjina u javne poslove, a angažiranje nacionalnih manjina u tom segmentu ima veliki utjecaj na podizanje opće svijesti o manjinama u državi i kod većinskog i kod manjinskog stanovništva, kao i na ulijevanje povjerenja u institucije vlasti kod pripadnika nacionalnih manjina. Osim ova tri osnovna mehanizma, SO poziva specijalizirane organe izvršnih vlasti, kao što su ministarstva i odjeli za prava manjina, da koordiniraju, prate i uključuju manjinska pitanja na svim nivoima vlasti. Specijalizirani organi vlasti imaju zadatak da koordiniraju državnu politiku prema nacionalnim manjinama i zaduženi su za praćenje implementacije i rezultata, kao i za povezivanje sa predstavnicima manjina, manjinskim organizacijama, te odgovarajućim tijelima u kojima učestvuju manjine u cilju olakšavanja komunikacije. U ovom smislu, specijalizirani organi vlasti uključuju manjinska pitanja u cjelokupni institucionalni okvir i državni aparat. I na kraju, decentralizirani oblici vlasti, kao što su regionalna autonomija i samouprava, mogu predstavljati korisno sredstvo da se nacionalnim manjinama omogući kontrola nad njihovim interesima, naročito na lokalnom i regionalnom nivou. Drugi dio drugog poglavlja bavi se zajedničkim pitanjima koja se tiču efikasnosti institucionalnih mehanizama. Tu se ubrajaju legitimitet i pluralizam predstavnika nacionalnih manjina i ostalih sagovornika (kao što su relevantni predstavnici nevladinih organizacija, istraživači i drugi stručnjaci) da zastupaju pripadnike nacionalnih manjina; raspon tema pored kulture, obrazovanja i jezika u pogledu kojih predstavnici mogu učestvovati u odlučivanju, uključujući i raspodjelu budžeta; njihov utjecaj i glas u odlučivanju, pri čemu se naglašava značaj suštinske participacije, za razliku od pukog prisustva u organima vlasti; kao i uključivanje pitanja koja se tiču manjina u državnu politiku i institucije vlasti. Ova pitanja predstavljaju suštinske standarde participacije i moraju se uključiti u strukturu institucionalnog okvira kako bi se osiguralo da mehanizmi participacije omoguće pripadnicima nacionalnih manjina pravo da učestvuju u odlučivanju. Ovi standardi se zatim ispituju u trećem poglavlju, gdje se procjenjuje dosljednost djelovanja Savjetodavnog odbora. Među značajnijim prazninama u njegovom radu je nedovoljna povezanost direktnih kritika i dosta apstraktnih preporuka koje SO nudi u svojim mišljenjima. U trećem poglavlju se povezuju dva ranije spomenuta faktora – sloboda procjene i individualizirani pristup; ograničeni mandat i reaktivni pristup – da bi se objasnio dio ovih nedosljednosti. Istražuju se i drugi primijećeni propusti, kao što su: jednake kritike prema državama koje imaju različitu praksu; nedosljednosti i blagost; predlaganje alternativnih metoda koordinacije i uključivanja politika prema manjinama u pojedinim državama, a koje se razlikuju od uputa iz Komentara samog Savjetodavnog odbora; te nedosljednosti u reagiranju Odbora na izbor mehanizama participacije kada država članica iskazuje neujednačen razvoj tri vrste participatornih kanala ili njihov neujednačen razvoj na različitim nivoima vlasti.
More...
Tržište rada u Bosni i Hercegovini (BiH) suočava se sa velikim izazovima. Nezaposlenost je kontinuirano visoka, a zaposlenost niska. Faktori poput ratnog razaranja industrijske infrastrukture, gubitka poslovnih veza usljed raspada Jugoslavije, neadekvatne prilagodbe novom poslovnom i tehnološkom okruženju, neuspješnih privatizacijskih procesa i generalno nepovoljne makroekonomske klime ostavili su negativne posljedice na kreiranje novih radnih mjesta. Pritom se kroz gotovo svakodnevne proteste radnika kojima poslodavci ne isplaćuju plate ili ne uplaćuju doprinose pokazuju ozbiljne slabosti sistema socijalne sigurnosti i zaštite prava radnika.
More...
Partnerstvo za otvorenu vlast (Open Government Partnership – OGP) nastoji podstaći vlade država iz cijelog svijeta da postanu transparentnije i odgovornije prema svojim građanima, “s krajnjim ciljem unapređenja kvaliteta upravljanja, kao i kvaliteta usluga koje građani dobijaju”. Ova multilateralna inicijativa formalno je pokrenuta 20. septembra 2011. godine, kada su vlade Brazila, Indonezije, Južne Afrike, Meksika, Norveške, Filipina, Sjedinjenih Američkih Država i Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva dale podršku Deklaraciji o otvorenoj vlasti. U međuvremenu je broj zemalja koje učestvuju u inicijativi narastao na šezdeset uključujući sve države zapadnog Balkana osim Bosne i Hercegovine (BiH) i Kosova. Inicijativu nadzire upravni odbor čiji su članovi predstavnici vlada i civilnog društva.
More...
The Knesset elections held on 17 September did not reveal a clear winner, as none of the blocs formed around the largest parties - Likud and Blue and White - won a parliamentary majority. The parties’ readiness for compromise over the idea of a national unity government or internal splits may prove to be key in the formation of the future coalition.
More...
Despite the extension of negotiations, on 20 December in St. Petersburg, the presidents of Russia and Belarus did not sign documents deepening economic integration of the countries because of a lack of agreement on the prices for gas and oil and arrangements related to their tax codes.
More...
Rządząca Grecją od 2019 r. centroprawicowa, proeuropejska partia Nowa Demokracja premiera Kiriakosa Mitsotakisa 21 maja br. zdecydowanie wygrała przedterminowe wybory parlamentarne. Jednak nie stworzy ona gabinetu w rozpoczynającej się kadencji, ale będzie dążyć do ponownych przedterminowych wyborów, które odbędą się według nowej ordynacji wyborczej. Liczy, że ich wynik umożliwi jej samodzielne rządy. Przejściowy kryzys polityczny i rządy techniczne będą krótkotrwałe i nie spowodują zmiany greckiej polityki zagranicznej.
More...
On December 17, 2023, the Republic of Serbia will hold extraordinary parliamentary elections, elections for the Assembly of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, and local elections for the capital city of Belgrade, along with an additional 65 local self-governments. According to the proportional representation system employed for parliamentary elections to the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia, 250 members of parliament will be elected. Approximately 6.5 million registered voters are eligible to exercise their voting rights across over 8,000 polling stations.
More...
Early parliamentary elections in Montenegro were held on 11 June 2023. However, the official election results were publicized only on 14 July 2023. The parties that won the largest number of votes from the voters for the Parliament of Montenegro, which has 81 representatives, include the Europe Now Movement /Pokret Evropa sad/ which won 25.53% of votes (24 representatives), the Together Coalition /Zajedno/ (DPS, SD, LP, DUA) 23.22% (21 representatives), the For the Future of Montenegro coalition /Za budućnost Crne Gore/ (NSD, DNP, RP) 14.74% (13 representatives), the Bravery Counts coalition /Hrabro se broji/ (Democrats and URA) 12.48% (11 representatives), Bosniak Party 7.08% (6 representatives), Albanian Forum 1.91% (2 representatives), the For You coalition /Za tebe/ (SNP and Demos) 3.13% (2 representatives), the Croat minority list On the Right Side of the World /Na pravoj strani svijeta –HGI/ 0.74% (1 representative) and the Albanian minority Albanian Alliance coalition /Albanska alijansa/ 1.49% (1 representative).
More...
In the Republic of Albania the next local elections are scheduled to take place on 14 May 2023. The last local elections, which were held on 30 June 2019, were boycotted by the opposition, while the turnout at the elections was only 21.6%. As a result, all positions in local self-governance authorities were occupied by the candidates of the Socialist Party (PS) headed by Edi Rama. The last local elections in Albania were conducted in an atmosphere of tensions, after the Albanian opposition had withdrawn from the work of the Parliament and organized political activities on the streets of Tirana at which it requested the resignation of Prime Minister Rama, establishment of an interim government and holding of general elections.
More...
In Kosovo, extraordinary local elections will be held on 23 April 2023 in four predominantly Serb municipalities in the north of Kosovo (Severna Mitrovica, Leposavić, Zubin Potok and Zvečan) to elect the municipal mayors as well as councilors for the municipal councils in Leposavić and Zvečan. The extraordinary local elections will be held after the mayors and municipal councilors from the Srpska lista /Serb List/ party had left the Kosovo institutions in four municipalities in the north of Kosovo as a protest against the decision of the Kosovo Government on mandatory reregistration of vehicles from former Serbian (KM) to RKS registration plates. The elections were to be held on 18 December 2022, but due to unfavorable security situation have been postponed for 23 April 2023. The official election campaign will take place from 4 April to 21 April 2023.
More...
Greece was the first country from the region that joined the European Union. Namely, Greece became and EU member in 1981, a member of the Schengen Zone in 1992, and it joined the Eurozone in 2001. Greece has been a NATO member since 1952. As it is surrounded by three seas, specifically the Ionian Sea, Aegean Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea, Greece has a specific geostrategic position. The United States of America and Greece cultivate friendly relations. Nevertheless, it is important to note that majority of the Greek population is of Orthodox religion, and a part of the population harbors sympathies for Russia. This does not constitute any problem for the strategic orientation of the country towards the EU and NATO. The US Navy has its naval base (in the Souda Bay) at the Crete Island since 1951. In 2021, the US and Greece signed an agreement that allows the US military to utilize three more military bases on the Aegean coast of Greece – in Volos, Litochoro, and Alexandroupolis.
More...
The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is becoming increasingly complicated, not just because of the intensification of the armed conflict in Ukraine, but also because of the process of establishment of the government after the general elections in October 2022. At the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina the government was established by the Alliance of Independent Social Democrats (SNSD), Croatian Democratic Union BiH (HDZBiH) and the parties of the so-called “Trojka” (Social-Democratic Party -SDP, People and Justice -NiP and Our Party -NS). The government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina has still not been established on the basis of the election results from 2018 because of the blockades by the HDZBiH. The imposing of specific articles of the Election Law[2] and the enactment of amendments[3] to the Constitution of the Federation of BiH in the election night by High Representative Christian Schmidt (CSU/EPP), which are directly related to the Federation of BiH, have further complicated and rendered the relations in BiH even more complex.
More...