The underlying aim of the article is to contribute to the understanding the relation between ethnic claims and policies which determine social relations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the debate on the current constitutional crisis in this country. The present ethno‑political regime heavily depends on the perpetual crisis as the primary source of political articulation and action. Though the Dayton Accords ended war and established peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the agreement did not create a functional central government, lacking the capacity to undertake the reforms needed to meet the terms of accession to the European Union. The peace treaty designed future state structures around the very ethnic‑based power struggles that shaped the conflict. As a result, ethnic‑based politics continued to dominate political space. These politics, combined with high levels of international oversight have distorted the state building process, and reduced democratization efforts. Today, Bosnia’s future is still uncertain. Political squabbles have seriously detracted from Bosnia’s ability to engage in reforms needed to boost its economy and move closer to the EU. Conflicting ambitions of national party leaders is an important factor in this failure. Representatives of an ethnic group can veto any decision that they feel does not accord with their interests. This means in effect that all major decisions have to be made by consensus among the main ethnic parties, which is often very difficult since they have fundamentally different views on Bosnia’s future. Although Bosnia and Herzegovina is currently not in danger of being dismembered, awareness that the country cannot survive without multi‑ethnic collaboration should remain one of the guiding principles for Bosnia’s ruling ethnically‑based political parties.
The Arab Spring in Libya took the form of a civil war, which led to the external military intervention and overthrowing the Muammar Qaddafi regime. Nearly seven years since the war broke out, the country has still remained in chaos. A lack of consensus regarding the form of political system and leadership in the country maintains the status quo and makes the current deadlock increasingly difficult to be broken. The article seeks to analyse the political landscape in Libya as well as the factors affecting the political impasse in the country, which, in the opinion of the author, comprised primarily of the coexistence of several power centres, ethnic conflicts, the activity of armed groups (militias) created both by military members and Islamists, and the weakness as well as the lack of unity in making a compromise on Libya among external actors, including the UN.
PL
Arabska Wiosna przybrała w Libii formę wojny domowej, w następstwie której doszło do zewnętrznej interwencji zbrojnej i obalenia reżimu Muammara Kaddafiego. Bez mała siedem lat od wybuchu wojny państwo nadal pogrążone jest w chaosie. Brak zgody co do kształtu ustrojowego i przywództwa państwa konserwuje status quo i sprawia, że wyjście z impasu jest coraz trudniejsze. W artykule podjęto próbę analizy sytuacji politycznej Libii oraz czynników determinujących impas polityczny, którymi są – zdaniem autorki – przede wszystkim: współistnienie kilku ośrodków władzy, konflikty etniczne, aktywność ugrupowań zbrojnych (milicji), tworzonych zarówno przez wojskowych, jak i islamistów, a także słabość i brak jedności aktorów zewnętrznych, w tym ONZ, w wypracowywaniu kompromisu dotyczącego Libii
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.