The concept of the European Union (EU) in terms of funding, or the democracy it promises, and many recognized benefits within the framework of growth of countries wellbeing, a vision of a better future and living conditions for citizens, was universally seen by people as redemption from previous instability and uncertainty. But ultimately, the process of integration and adaptation was not as simple as it might seem at first glance, especially for countries that transitioned from a centrally planned economy to a market economy after the fall of the communist/socialist regime. Both countries were, therefore, in the same position at a certain historical stage. For that reason, one might ask, what factors contributed to one country being part of the EU today while the other is moving towards this direction only now? Moreover, what can be done to accelerate the process of admission, and what can we learn from each other?
The European Union as we know it today came into force with the Maastricht Treaty on 1 November 1993. The original founding countries were Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. Denmark and Ireland joined them in 1993, and Austria, Finland and Sweden in 1995. It was clear that Europe needed to expand its influence in Eastern and Central Europe, and so it included in 2004, within “the Enlargement process” the EU8 countries, former communist regimes. Slovakia being a part of them.
Historical backgrounds
The independent Slovak Republic was established on January 1, 1993, when the common paths of Czechoslovakia peacefully parted. In October of the same year, the then Prime Minister and controversial figure, Vladimír Mečiar, signed an association agreement in Luxembourg.
However, this path was not without obstacles. Each country must meet the Copenhagen political criteria, which require that the state sufficiently protect human rights, democracy in the country, have functional institutions, and protect minorities. In 1997, Slovakia was removed from the list of countries with which membership negotiations were to be held, precisely because of Mečiar’s government, which committed many publicly known cases of privatization of enterprises that fell into the hands of oligarchs, the kidnapping of the president’s son, the mafia and the secret service were flourishing at that time, corruption reached record proportions and criminals were granted amnesties. As a result, the EU labeled our country insufficiently democratic.
At that time, a wave of independence was spreading across Europe, but while the division of Czechoslovakia took place without major complications and unrest, the same cannot be said about the bloody disintegration of Yugoslavia. Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence on March 1, 1992, which led to a three-and-a-half-year conflict. Because of this tragedy, our countries’ priorities naturally differed at the time. After the war, the number one priority in Bosnia was the reconstruction of not only the infrastructure but also the system from the ground up, which understandably delayed any progress on the EU integration process.
However, we still had one thing in common: high levels of corruption. Some two-thirds of the population believed that corrupt practices occur often or very often in a number of important public institutions, including central and local government, parliament, political parties, hospitals and the police (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Vienna, 2011).
Slovakia’s accession to the EU and the beginning of Bosnia’s promising progress
The turnaround came six days after the 1998 parliamentary elections, which the EU described as a positive political change when EU proponent Mikuláš Dzurinda became prime minister. On 11 December 1999, the Helsinki European Council decided to open accession negotiations to six applicant countries, and every country was supposed to be “judged on its own merits”. (European Parliament, 1999)
President Rudolf Schuster called a referendum on the country’s EU membership on 16 and 17 May 2003. However, the expected turnout was low, and the fear of not reaching the required 50% was growing. The historical moment happened when the coalition decided to join with the opposition despite their utterly differing political views. The result was that the overwhelming majority of voters (92.46%) voted for the country’s EU membership, which showed that, simply put, people had had enough of instability and wanted to move forward. Significant decisions can only be achieved when the majority unites and people collectively aim towards a common goal, which I see as inevitable in the case of Bosnia too.
Regarding Bosnia, the Summit in Thessaloniki was held in the same year, where it was agreed on a common perspective on the future accession of the Balkan countries to the EU, and in 2004, the EU officially adopted a partnership with Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, for a long time, no significant progress was made for several reasons. The primary cause is unquestionably the post-war recovery and the Dayton Agreement, which divided the territory into entities and complicated the political system, which significantly intricate the functioning of all sectors of the state from decision-making, adoption of laws to the general functioning of the system. In comparison with Slovakia, whose two largest minorities consist of Hungarians under 10% and Roma population around the same percentage, Bosnia’s case is much more complex and problematic. Yet, ethnic diversity does not necessarily have to be a problem, as Switzerland demonstrates. Despite not having a common language, they show mutual respect, coexist in harmony, and choose collaboration over boycotting and undermining state sovereignty. Even with the efforts of EUFOR, foreign funding programmes, and grants from the European Union and many other attempts to improve the economic and political situation and raise awareness, passivity and polarized opinions in society persisted, as did a lack of interest of politicians, but typically only unless it didn’t involve exploiting these EU subsidies. The shift occurred in 2016 when Bosnia submitted an application for membership. In its 2019 opinion, the European Commission identified 14 key priority actions for the country before the EU could open accession negotiations, including deep reform of democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights (European Parliamentary Research Service, 2024). In 2022, the decision on the status of a candidate country was approved, and in 2024, accession negotiations began.
What can Bosnia learn from other EU countries?
In some instances, such as the example of Hungary or even Slovakia, many political issues are still prevalent, but in certain factors, are objectively perhaps a step ahead. I personally identify the following points as the most important for the desired transformation.
In addition to all the conditions that Bosnia must meet in order to become a member of the EU, it should also try to work on other aspects. Each of us has experienced how dysfunctional the administration is, and we are well aware of the fact that the corrupted system inevitably needs many changes. But what people tend to overlook most are other matters, such as the abandoned value of mutual respect. It is crucial to unite instead of divide and realize that, above all, all citizens are part of something bigger, one state and one nationality, united by a common culture, language, and history. Therefore, hatred should be replaced by an effort to unify the direction of the country. As long as people continue to point fingers at each other, who is to blame, and oppose their own fellow citizens, the situation will never improve. How can an economy and a strong system be built when politicians do not agree even on basic things? As a country, Bosnia has enormous potential, an immense amount of resources, and natural conditions suitable for cultivation, and it is sad to see how that potential remains unused, how many products are imported when they could be produced in competitive quality in Bosnia instead and that way support the domestic market. Establishing a stronger economy would not only have benefits for citizens as it would increase their salaries or reduce unemployment, but a favorable economic climate would also attract many foreign investors.
Most importantly, opening the gates to the world, like other EU countries did, would help achieve such a desirable result. Developing tourism is another key source of income for the country, and Bosnia truly has a lot to offer in this way, but it is difficult to bring tourism if there are almost no flight connections with the rest of Europe and if, then at exorbitant prices, moreover, insufficiently promoted and marked tourist spots without any public transport connections between such places and poor maintenance or neglect of places that could be transformed into tourist destinations.
And finally, we come to the passivity of people to make any change. As for other EU countries, young people have many opportunities; they voluntarily and actively engage in the political sphere, and they are included in debates or decision-making since they are seen as our future. In Bosnia, people struggle to solve the challenges of daily survival and thus do not have faith in the system of their own country. As a result, people choose to ignore what is happening instead of trying to change something for the better. Young people go live abroad because there are not enough lucrative job positions or visions of improvement in the near future, and they consequently let the older generation decide, which cannot bring a new direction. The major focus should be on educating young people sufficiently in schools as a first step. To open their horizons about how their political system works, to give them the opportunity to get involved, or to receive benefits from the state in case they decide to stay instead of pursuing opportunities abroad.
Conclusion
Bosnia has been given a chance to go in the right direction and to move forward towards the goal of joining the EU, and it is only up to the people and politicians whether they decide to use it or not. However, it is important to emphasize that one should not depend solely on the
EU and think that all problems will be suddenly resolved or that it will be a savior who will lift the country out of poverty. It does not matter how many billions of money the EU sends if they do not go to the right purpose. It requires much more, namely an effort on the part of the state to work on the problems and work on change to ensure its citizens a promising future. But I genuinely believe that Bosnia has immense potential to achieve great things if it perseveres in its pursuit of a brighter future. Europe is optimistic and is certainly standing by Bosnia this time.
