Search

How difficult it is to introduce democratic institutional arrangements in a territory that had mainly experience with authoritarian government is illustrated by the case of Bosnia-Herzegovina (BH). The Dayton Peace Accord of 1995 established the (Office of the) High Representative (OHR) to help the new republic of BH develop into a democracy. After more than 25 years, one cannot but conclude that the creation of democratic institutions has not worked for lack of collaboration between the three most important ethnic groups. At best, BH is a controlled democracy, held together by OHR. The development of this office is analyzed in terms of a neo-institutional framework. We argue that the republic survives so far on the basis of negative legitimacy (accepting the OHR as the binding institutional arrangement). This also suggests that neither developments in a past long gone nor more recent developments (i.e., ‘strong’ path-dependency) prohibit a development toward positive legitimacy (i.e., ‘lean’ path-dependency). The case of BH also illustrates that democracy is hard, if not impossible, to establish when people are internally divided and where (some) domestic and international actors exploit these divisions in the international arena.

Given the pace of contemporary events, this brief commentary is intended as an addendum and recent update to our original research article that is also published in this issue of World Affairs (vol. 185, no. 2) entitled “The High Representative in Bosnia-Herzegovina: The Unusual Institutional Arrangement of a Non-Authoritarian, yet Controlled, Democracy” (see Dijkstra and Raadschelders 2022 ). We focus here on Russia's role in Bosnia and raise some tentative questions that are likely to remain extremely important for world affairs in the Balkans and beyond over the coming months. This commentary was submitted to World Affairs Journal some days before the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Given the extreme unpredictability of the situation regarding Ukraine and Russia, we elected not to provide substantive updates since late February 2022.

When studying civil service traditions, scholars often contrast the Eastern, Confucian tradition from the Western, Weberian tradition. A few Korean and American scholars pointed out that the two traditions are not that different. It is argued in this article that they are not, because they are both grounded in the ancient Egyptian wisdom literature about what makes a good civil servant. They are impartial in their dealings with people, the have the administrative and technical skills necessary, and they respect the rule of law. The ancient Egyptian, Confucian, and Weberian traditions are visible in the work of Yu Hyŏngwŏn, a 17th century Korean scholar and civil servant.

It is only in the last 250 years that ordinary people (in some parts of the world) have become citizens rather than subjects. This change happened in a very short period, between 1780 and 1820, a result of the foundations of democracy laid in the age of revolutions. A century later local governments embraced this shift due to rapid industrialization, urbanization, and population growth. During the twentieth century, all democratic governments began to perform a range of tasks, functions, and services that had no historical precedent. In the thirty years following the Second World War, Western democracies created welfare states that, for the first time in history, significantly reduced the gap between the wealthy and everyone else. Many of the reforms of that postwar period have been since rolled back because of the belief that government should be more like a business. Jos C.N. Raadschelders provides the information that all citizens should have about their connections to government, why there is a government, what it does, how it does it, and why we can no longer do without it. The Three Ages of Government rises above stereotypical thinking to show the centrality of government in human life.