As I obsessively follow the “what next?” news, it’s heartening to see that the Biden administration has been doing what is it legally required to do in terms of having a transition team in place, so the next 2 months of handing over the reins of governance can begin. The Trump administration famously ignored the handover process that had been well-organized by President Obama, the first of many signs that he does not believe in study or homework. Yet the Biden team, in line with the basic brand of competence he made core to his campaign – and in marked contrast to the fact-free grievance rallies of President Trump – is moving already to begin appointing the experts that will help to guide the US out of the hole it has dug for itself, beginning with the pandemic response that has been lacking since the beginning.

I realized that my hesitance to publicly celebrate is likely born of the understanding that electoral democracy and liberal democracy are two very different things — a point on which there’s been a growing academic and popular literature since the end of the Cold War. There was a period when many in “the west” conflated the two, or blithely assumed that one would naturally and inevitably bring the other. That was one of the reasons that elections were held so prematurely in post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina – the illusion of free, fair and competitive elections in a country just coming out of a 3 ½ year war was ludicrous, but necessary for a west (then definitely led by the US) that wanted to show it had “fixed” Bosnia, and not only that, could quickly leave after having seen that “ballots = democracy.” (Neither scenario has turned out as many had hoped in the late 90s.)  

The less sexy part of resuscitating liberal democracy in the US will (hopefully) now unfold less ostentatiously, on the interwoven threads of an independent civil service, the legislation and institutions that form the public administration, and – hopefully – a US citizenry that is ready to stay engaged after coming out to cast ballots in the greatest numbers the US has ever seen.  There are already roadmaps out there.

One book outlines the reforms needed to plug the gaps exploited by Trump, most notably related to his own exploitation of his office through corrupt self-dealing and the open flouting of constraints on the executive office. There is a list of 277 steps President Biden can take without requiring formal congressional approval, ranging from stopping Trump’s own executive orders, to reinstating committees and expert bodies (including those related to pandemic response), to ending the Trump administration wars against science, fact and transparency.

And in terms of the community rebuilding needed – the social capital that has been so torn over these past 4 years but which had been fraying long before that – another recent “what next?” discussion pondered how and where Americans can once again meet with and interact with “the other,” to stop seeing each other as some alien enemy, but to begin to find some common ground. One commentator noted,  “[P]eople are beginning to say, okay, what is the civic infrastructure of this country? Things as simple as public spaces in which people who don’t look like each other, and don’t think like each other can be together. There are more libraries in this country than there are Starbucks.” The infrastructure of elections, governance and civic engagement are three legs of the proverbial stool.

Without a process and progress like this the long-term victory of a Biden agenda will be far from certain. The fact that 70 million Americans voted for a president who was demonstrably ready to embrace authoritarian ends to maintain his own power base is chilling. Biden knows this, and made it clear in his victory speech that he intends to represent all Americans, not just those who voted for him.

I’m cautiously hopeful that this learning process in the US will translate into more mature democratization policies abroad, including better identifying and supporting partners who share the values we’ve now seen are so critical to a liberal peace. As a Biden administration sets out to rebuild American diplomacy, as a part of that process they would do well to recognize that rebuilding democracy at home should have  implications for democratization policies abroad. It’s a good opportunity for a shift in how the US engages in its democracy and human rights programming, towards one that is more constructive, more humble and reflective, and more willing to embrace two-way street approaches. (I personally would like to start by sending at  least 20 Trump voters who have expressed that they think more robust social safety net policies would turn the US into North Korea off on a study trip to Sweden.)

We’re lucky that it will only be 4 years of Trump to clean up, though one cannot discount the extent to which decades of inattention to these elements of governance have been ignored. However, I hope that in 6, 7 or 8 months, once it looks like the pandemic is no longer flooding the American map in red, once the US re-engages with the world on climate and other global challenges, and once I see that people are indeed getting engaged in libraries, town halls and local community centers, then I may drive around Sarajevo and beep a few cautious, hopeful times.

The post When Will I Celebrate appeared first on Democratization Policy Council.

The gratuitous and protracted killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police on Memorial Day spurred an unprecedented outpouring of black American demands for police accountability and systemic change – beginning in Minneapolis, with some high visibility instances of property destruction, looting, and violence.  But in the main, nationwide protests have been peaceful.  They also exhibit hitherto unseen transracial and societal solidarity, well outside the urban areas where protest began.  This is a rapidly developing constituency with the potential to drive a major recalibration of American society.

Much remains uncertain.  But the breadth of the perception gap builds on an already stunning polarization in American society as the November elections approach – and the prevalence of firearms (and their centrality in the identity, in particular, among Trump’s constituency) makes this a particularly volatile moment.  What became abundantly clear with Trump’s attempt to militarize responses to protests and unrest, as well as having Lafayette Square cleared of peaceful protesters for his photo op at St. John’s Church, was that there are no limits to his efforts to drive polarization.  It is not incidental to his agenda.  It is essential.

The political dynamics playing out at present emerge organically from the soil of America’s four centuries of racial oppression and inequity.  But the Black Lives Matter Movement and demonstrations nationwide gained a global resonance and solidarity, spurring societal reflections and calls for justice.  These are both closely related to the abuse of power which generated the popular outrage – systemic police brutality, but also local issues of systemic unfairness and lack of reckoning with the past.  So while this historical moment emerged with specific American contours, it is a global one. 

Some parallels can be made from quarters not typically high in the US public consciousness.  Trump’s operating system is strongly reminiscent of those which have played out from the late 1980s to date in the former Yugoslavia.  The resemblance is so strong that I have called Trump “our first Balkan president.”  

Inated States of America

Trump’s initial and continuing appeal to his constituency has been reaction to and fear of societal change, as well as resentment at its perceived prime movers and beneficiaries.  In what became the waning days of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milošević appealed to Serbs, first in Kosovo where they felt outnumbered and displaced from a rightful dominance by the majority ethnic Albanians, but then throughout Yugoslavia, playing on their sense of having been cheated in the multinational Yugoslav federation.  A potent element in his – and other nationalists’ – repertoire was inat (Ee-not), a word brought via Ottoman Turkish usually translated as “spite,” but closer in meaning to German schadenfreude, requiring a longer explanation in English.  It connotes in four letters “this is going to hurt me, but it’s going to hurt you more – and I am going to enjoy that you are suffering.”  While English has no snappy equivalent, it is clearly felt here and has become pandemic.  “Owning the libs,” “rolling coal,” and “triggering” are all evidence of this trend.  Donald Trump’s harnessing a deep seam of untapped inat made him president.  His administration has been a breeder reactor of it ever since. 

The fear of a reckoning for past wrongdoing can be a strong bonding agent for communities and societies.  This was evident in Nazi Germany in 1945, as Allied armies advanced from east and west. Germans flocked westward, fearing the revenge of a ravaged Soviet Union.  In Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnian Serb separatist leader Milorad Dodik has often said the country was untenable because of Bosniak desire for “revenge,” while continuing to deny that genocide had been committed against them by Bosnian Serb forces in the war – a legally established fact.  His rationale was clearly to frighten Bosnian Serbs to cleave to his leadership, for fear of being overwhelmed.  Demographic fear of being outnumbered by Muslim fellow citizens proved of great utility as a mobilizing tool among Serbs in particular; a “green transversal” theory was touted – and remains in circulation.  Genocidal policies and acts from the wars of the 1990s have provided inspiration for white identity nationalist violence worldwide, most vividly in Anders Breivik’s 2011 Utoya massacre in Norway and in the Christchurch shootings in 2019.  The “great replacement” theory – that whites and Christians will be outnumbered and dominated by migrants and non-Christian minorities – gained traction in Europe and the wider West, despite the evidence contradicting the apocalyptic Clash of Civilizations visions.

While the demographics at play in the United States are very different – African Americans are 13% of the population – the fears of the waning of white dominance in the US have been central to Trump’s appeal to “Make America Great Again.”  But the direction of travel toward whites ceasing to be the majority in just a generation, provides an ambient fear environment undergirding the entire Trump agenda.  Trump’s referring to white nationalist demonstrators at a “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville as “very fine people” was widely seen as validation. (The rally featured a Nuremberg-style torchlit march in which participants chanted “you will not replace us! Jews will not replace us!” and one antifascist demonstrator, Heather Heyer, was killed and several more critically injured in a deliberate car attack.) The fact that Trump advisor Stephen Miller, behind the Muslim ban and institutional brutality toward asylum seekers, is reputed to be writing an upcoming Trump speech on race, is indicative of the likely content.  The timing and venue of that speech – initially scheduled to be delivered on June 19^th in Tulsa, Oklahoma – seems as calculated and egregious an expression on inat politics as any in the Trump presidency.  June 19, “Juneteenth,” is the day American blacks celebrate the end of slavery; Tulsa was the scene of a particularly devastating racial pogrom against the black community in 1921.  The fact that the rally has been shifted a day has done nothing to dull the initial message sent that black lives do not matter, but rather only provides (im)plausible deniability.

Such calculated polarization to maintain power remains endemic in post-Yugoslav politics.  A Catholic mass in Sarajevo, sponsored by the parliament of Croatia, to commemorate victims of the summary executions by Tito’s partisans of Croat and other collaborationists (including civilians) fleeing Yugoslavia in Bleiburg in 1945 was the most recent such example of spectacles designed specifically to inflame and divide.  The backlash in Sarajevo against the mass was predictable, though its scale surprised many during the current pandemic.

Now that a much more pronounced demand for an end to police brutality against blacks has been made, and the disproportionate harm the coronavirus has wreaked upon the black population in particular (and people of color more broadly) has come into focus, demands for a more thorough recalibration of the American social contract and order are being heard.  It precipitated palpable angst, particularly in exurban and rural white Trump strongholds, in large part due to disinformation.  Yet in that same terrain, less predictably, unprecedented solidarity demonstrations continue.  Polling conducted on June 9-10 shows overwhelming support for peaceful protests, with even a 59 percent majority of Republican respondents in favor – 82 percent for banning police chokeholds.  This is a tectonic shift.

Trump’s call on governors to “dominate” the protests, employing overwhelming force, as well as insistence on the theatrical deployment of National Guard and militarized, unidentified federal agents, demonstrates a clear desire to play to those fears and escalate a sense of crisis.  It is likely that he wanted to seize the initiative to precipitate more confrontation and violence, to give both a pretext for the harsh crackdown he desired and to scare white voters who might have thought of gravitating to Biden or sitting the election out into voting for him.  In essence, by escalating radically, he aimed to force them to choose between fear and a sense of justice or fairness.  The greater the perception of chaos, the more likely they would vote for him.

Efforts to escalate deep social divides for political gain were seen recently in another part of the former Yugoslavia – North Macedonia – twice in two years.  In both cases – a still murky firefight between security forces and ethnic Albanian militants in the town of Kumanovo in May 2015 and a “spontaneous” nationalist attack on opposition lawmakers to prevent the formation of a government in April 2017 – the evident aim was to stoke fears of renewed ethnic conflict (or even actual violence) to justify a clampdown and Nikola Greuvski remaining in control (in 2015 as prime minister; in 2017 as the clear power behind a caretaker government).  In neither case did it have the desired effect.  Gruevski is now a political asylee in Viktor Orbán’s Hungary.

Trump’s Phantom Paramilitary Boogeymen

Dominance of media isn’t feasible as before – but it doesn’t need to be once society is so polarized that the information space is effectively politically segregated.  In this world – in broadcast, online, and social media – Antifa, a loose self-organized agglomeration of leftist streetfighters who sometimes appear at demonstrations and engage in violence, has been amplified from the fringe phenomenon it truly is into a fearsome paramilitary army in the Trumpworld imaginary.   But this has already had real world consequences, with peaceful multiracial Black Lives Matter marchers having to pass a long lineup of heavily armed residents in northeast Indiana – in sight of police – being just one of many examples of the potential confrontations set up trough manufactured fear. 

In the past week, Fox News’ Tucker Carlson has provided a perfect window into this dynamic, showing a number of Yugoslav-era parallels.  In his monologue, Carlson acts deliberately as a white fear agitator and amplifier – both to Fox’s overwhelmingly white, right-wing viewership, but at least as importantly to President Trump himself, playing to his most authoritarian and repressive instincts.  It is, in effect, an admonition not to “go wobbly,” but rather to radicalize, as demonstrated in Lafayette Square.  He spoke of “the mob” swarming “like hornets,” calling on those in government to “protect your people.”  Carlson in particular among major media commentators is promoting what might be called a “black scare,” stoking an ambient fear of chaos which can only be met with repression, both from the government, but also from militia types.  The fact that such messages continue long after any significant incidence of property damage or violence from demonstrators is telling.  In a recent episode, he argued that any engagement with the Black Lives Matter movement was a slippery slope.  Maintaining group homogenization – and segregation – is a staple of top-down Balkan politics.

This is a typical post-Yugoslav technique.  Bosnian Serb political leader Milorad Dodik, for example, could have scripted this immediate grasp for the lever of fear.  In response to demonstrations at poverty and lack of accountability which erupted in Bosnia and Herzegovina in early 2014, Dodik spoke darkly of the threat to the Republika Srpska from the neighboring Federation half of the state, illegally establishing checkpoints, as well.  But he was simply the best positioned to act with coercive power on the fears he stoked; other politicians in the country had parallel instincts to ethnicize the protests to deflect public anger away from themselves. The fact that this failed to gain traction was not lost on citizens throughout the country.  Four years later, following the still murky murder of a Banja Luka youth, David Dragičević, demonstrations began, led by his father, Davor, against widely suspected police misconduct and perhaps involvement.  The deep public distrust of the official version from Dodik’s authorities helped the movement grow – and gain palpable solidarity across ethnic lines, merging with demonstrations in Sarajevo against authorities for the killing of local youth Dženan Memić – also with high suspicion of official malfeasance.  The fathers of the young men became allies and friends – and struck fear into the static political establishment like no bottom-up effort since the war.  Violent suppression of demonstrations in Banja Luka in late 2018 broke the momentum.  But the demonstrated popular solidarity challenged the dark soul of the country’s corrupt power-sharing machine, showing the limits to the effectiveness of the old divisive toolkit. In another parallel, the Covid-19 crisis has given established political leaders the ability to direct public resources in blatantly self-dealing ways – or without any transparency at all.  This phenomenon was observed ludicrously in Bosnia, where an SDA-connected raspberry farmer was able to get a concession for ventilators at an absurd markup – a fact exposed through investigative journalism.  In the US, Trump’s Treasury Department refuses to disclose the distribution of $500 billion in aid to businesses, with Treasury Secretary Stephen Mnuchin stating that the information concerning this public money was “proprietary.”  In both cases, fear of accountability is evidently absent, as patronage is surely present.

The movement’s rapid growth, wide reach, and wider pool of sympathy may, counterintuitively, stiffen resistance and its recalcitrance.  The very diversity of participation in the growing demonstrations, as well as their broad reach, is likely an amplifier of angst for a certain segment of the white population.  If my children, grandchildren, friends or neighbors don’t evidently share my fears, at least I know Trump does – and he has my back. 

Over the course of the Trump presidency, much has been made of his erratic nature, that he seems to lack a governing strategy.  But in a land without strategic opponents, the intuitive tactician is king.  Trump has a thin playbook (the very term is antithetical to his ethos), but the plays in it are tried and true.  General James Mattis correctly observed he hasn’t even tried to unite the American people.  This is by design.  He never could to begin with; his goal is to keep his own constituency galvanized behind him and to keep his opponents divided or otherwise neutralized.  The noxious, caustic atmosphere of division, resentment, fear, and enemies is the only air that he can breathe to survive politically.

His trip to the White House bunker was therefore metaphorically perfect, as well as a reflection of genuine fear – leading to his performance of authoritarianism in “the battle of Lafayette Square.”  The broadening of a popular movement for change against police brutality, which he has advocated and supported, does not bode well for him.  The terms of the political discourse in America have already changed radically as a result first of a global pandemic, and now a concurrent movement demanding equality and justice.  That changes the atmospheric composition to one upon which Trump cannot survive.

Social movement research demonstrates that developing breadth in a movement – and cutting into support bases of the regime – dramatically increases the possibility of success.  And this is precisely what Trump fears.  Furthermore, the loyalty of security forces is also essential.  The unwillingness of the (rump) Yugoslav Army and much of the police to violently disperse crowds in Belgrade after Slobodan Milošević’s attempt to steal an early presidential election put paid to his regime – and ultimately landed him in the dock to face war crimes charges.  The statements by former Secretary of Defense James Mattis and several other secretaries of defense, chiefs of staff, and defense officials are clearly aimed at encouraging those in uniform to not obey an illegal order.  The June 11^th statement by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Mark Milley that his appearance with the president in his photo op had been “a mistake” which made the military appear political, amplified this.

We may never know what went through Trump’s mind as he heard chanting crowds outside the White House and hurried downstairs.  But his phone call to governors and photo op soon after seemed an attempt to calm himself, to “take back control.”  But like the Wizard of Oz, his machinery failed him.  Unfortunately, he is not the only one afraid.  And we can count on the fact that he will do his utmost to amplify and capitalize on those fears.  There’s nothing scarier than scared white people.

The post Polarization for Power and Profit: the Balkan Echoes of Trump’s Politics appeared first on Democratization Policy Council.

Valery Perry, DPC Senior Associate

Bosanski/Hrvatski/Srpski

Ever since pre-war times, when the first party profiteer fortunes were made through the fuel trade and sale of weapons to their fellow citizens (for “patriotic” reasons) and wartime  control of supplies of food, cigarettes and coffee (when many current tycoons made their first millions and now are “respectable” business people – or political leaders), and continuing through the post-war looting of the remains of the Bosnian economy through privatization and “public” procurement, there has been an eternal supply of money to feed local gangster-politics. As a baseline, there is a steady flow of funds from domestic tax collection (employment and VAT). However, there are also particularly good seasons, when the pie is larger than normal. For example, in the period following the 2014 floods, there was the chance to control, direct and access large amounts of money from both local and international sources; or the period after the introduction of an additional excise tax on fuel, which intensified politically controlled employment in public road companies and literally set in concrete the politically motivated design and construction of extremely expensive sections of highway.

A new season of abundance of opportunities to mismanage, profit from and redirect both public and foreign resources is coming rapidly. It is so obvious that even the Minister of Security, Fahrudin Radončić, pulled out from the state BiH level Coordination Body for protection and rescue that will be in charge of distributing foreign aid. He is aware that the state has no standing and independent mechanisms to register, trace and control the flow of money and material aid, and his political reputation could be damaged when inevitable cases of stealing or profiteering will be discovered and published. 

The country’s public health sector will need support in fighting the spread of COVID-19, and citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina should know that the money is going to where it is needed, in a transparent and non-political manner. This is possible if there is will. Proof that the international community can apply conditionality in these circumstances just appeared in Ukraine, where the IMF is denying $8 billion USD of coronavirus related assistance unless Ukraine permits foreign companies to acquire ownership over agricultural land in that country. While this may not be the kind of conditionality some would like to see, it is proof positive that when IFIs or other donors want strings attached, they can certainly do it.

There are several categories of immediate actions necessary in Bosnia and Herzegovina, if there is any genuine interest in ensuring that  the majority of the money – both foreign and domestic –  is spent on saving lives and jobs. 

Foreign aid from all sources requires real time publishing, tracking and monitoring, including funds received and spent. This should include cash and aid in-kind. Existing solutions like Openaid.se or some of the resources shared within the Open Government Partnership community provide a good start. Theft and misappropriation of money and goods is not the only risk. Donations will be used for patronage purposes, to strengthen popularity of politicians and parties, always along polarizing and divisive lines (e.g., Turkish aid to the SDA; Serbian and Russian aid to the SNSD; Croatian aid to the HDZ).

Full transparency of arrangements and conditions to the BiH public must precede disbursements from international financial institutions (IFIs). This must include documents and explanations in the local language with a clear plan of repayment obligations.  World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), European Investment Bank (EIB), and International Monetary Fund (IMF) business with BiH is transparent until the point when BiH ministries, institutions, companies assume implementation. If IFI’s do not compel them contractually and legally to be radically and proactively transparent, they will not be. This was CPI’s experience in post hoc research on 2014 flood assistance money, including meetings and correspondence with entity officials. Requests for transparency in project implementation were completely ignored. The problem is that the IFIs treat the governments as good faith clients. However, citizens should be viewed as the ultimate clients. If this is not clear by now – after nearly 25 years of experience – it never will be.

Public finance management requires that governments at all levels, including city/municipal councils, must discuss, set and publish priorities, putting saving human health and lives on top, followed by citizens’ dignity, well-being and care, resuscitating the economy and maintaining infrastructure. Only after such a public and open process, and hearing and accepting input from academia, civil society and independent experts, can budget re-balancing in light of new priorities and new financial means begin. Even in regular times, there are standing recommendations that Bosnia should have an independent budget oversight body. Now it is needed more than ever.

Unfortunately, the consequences of politically-motivated decision making are already emerging. On April 3, the Federation Government published the breakdown of Federation assistance to cantons, cities and municipalities. No criteria were mentioned. It caused consternation among citizens and lower levels of government, provoked ethnically-driven reactions and confirmed broadly held assumptions that the system is corrupt and rigged. (HDZ controls finances at the State and Entity levels, and it appears that the ethnic origin of citizens in a particular region played an important role in decision making.) Even state level government officials expressed dissatisfaction with this decision, which was made without consultation and without any explanation. While hastily repealed amid the outcry, it provides a useful diagnostic tool on the dynamics and instincts of governance and decision-making by the leading parties.

A clear and complete fiscal monitor should be published online once a month, aggregating what is happening in terms of income and expenses, the future prognosis and scenarios, good practices to be shared and bad practices to be stopped and prevented. Clear public information and communications is essential. Citizens should be able to log on and see where the respirator was delivered, or where funds previously budgeted for local schools is now being spent.

There should also be a discussion on a moratorium on new concrete infrastructure (such as  highways, super expensive tunnels, etc.) so money can be shifted to supportive social infrastructure (schools and educational programming, child care, elder care, hospitals, clinics, etc.).  While the former are “sexy” and high profile, their broader socio-economic impact is often mixed. On the other hand there is evidence that the latter human labor intensive investment can have broadly beneficial socio-economic effects.   This would allow for a human-focused post-COVID economic reset. A thoughtful economic support package should be based on a social census targeted at assisting businesses and prioritizing according to the broader anticipated impact and social need. And while this longer term economic support is critical, more immediate direct assistance to workers and the unemployed should be a completely separate process. Money should not be expected to “trickle down;”  it doesn’t happen. 

Public procurement procedures require real time transparency as well.  The first batch of orders under emergency procedures has already happened. There will be many more. We all understand that even in an emergency low prices cannot be the only criteria. The reputation and solvency of firms, and their ability to meet delivery dates are critically important.  But now more than ever, all procedures have to be published online in real-time on a central portal. Such a portal exists (https://www.ejn.gov.ba) but is not fully used, since decision makers have had little interest in letting citizens know where their money is going. Proactive publishing and dissemination of calls for tenders among clusters of suppliers, in the country and in the region, can increase competition and reduce price fixing and other exploitative methods and their consequences. Also,  joint purchasing should be promoted and assisted, and even required when it would provide a clear economic benefit. If all 13 ministries of health are buying a zillion gloves, they will get them much cheaper together rather than buying a million each separately. (Sadly, a similar disjointed process of purchasing medical supplies and equipment in the US is positioning the 50 states in competition with one another, and igniting a debate there on whether coordinated federal purchasing would be more prudent.) There should be consequences for criminal and corrupt behavior, so there is a disincentive to steal from the public pot for private gain.

Finally, while internal government oversight is needed as described above, there is a critical need as well for fully empowered independent watchdog monitoring, to ensure an oversight partner. Accountable and democratic systems cannot work absent checks and balances. There are qualified and competent bodies in BiH – they need to have a formal seat at the table, access to the data and the ability to explain to the people where the money and supplies are going.

This is not an exhaustive list of problems and possible solutions. But it is a start. The Open Government Partnership (OGP), Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency (GIFT), World Bank and IMF are updating their recommendations on a daily basis. OGP and GIFT provide good examples for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The doctors and nurses (those who haven’t left for better lives and opportunities) who are doing their best to help their fellow citizens deserve such responsible oversight. But savvy political actors are perfectly fine with business as usual. They are comfortably self-isolated, and they know that their fortunes and those of their families will benefit in this time of grave hardship for ordinary citizens. Over three decades, they have exploited crisis for personal gain. The time has come for solutions that will finally disrupt this destructive cycle. 

The post Après le déluge – Protecting Budgets to Protect Lives appeared first on Democratization Policy Council.