1
Dayton: Peace without Politics
Abstract
Many commentators suggest that the transition to Bosnian ownership has been held
back by the Dayton framework, which created a weak central state and a country
divided into two separate Entities, the Republika Srpska and the Muslim-Croat
Federation, with ten cantonal governments, as well as an autonomous region, Brcko.
Ten years on, the idea that the post-war transition has been frustrated by a surfeit of
Bosnian governing institutions, protected by their Dayton status, could not be further
from the truth. Rather, the international powers of administration, under the Office of
the High Representative, have been vastly increased, reducing the Bosnian institutions
established by Dayton to administrative shells. There has been a transition away from
Dayton, but this has been from the ad hoc regulatory controls of the self-selected
‘coalition of the willing’, the Peace Implementation Council, towards an expanded
framework of European Union regulation, covering all aspects of the post-Dayton
process. Dayton has been a ‘moveable feast’, with external institutions rewriting their
mandates and powers. But despite the transformation in post-Dayton mechanisms, it
is still too early to talk of any indications of a shift towards Bosnian ‘ownership’.
Introduction
There is a consensus about Dayton - that is repeated so often it is virtually a manta of
international officials - that the 1995 peace agreement was a treaty ‘designed to end a
war, not to build a state’.
1
Commentators regularly argue that Dayton was negotiated
by the nationalist parties, whose leaders caused the war in the first place, and that it
therefore secured the power of these ethnically-based political parties.
2
Essentially,
therefore the political process since Dayton has been seen as ‘the continuation of war
by other means’, in an inversion of Clausewitz’s doctrine.
3
The domestic political
process in Bosnia is seen as illegitimate and fundamentally flawed. It is alleged that
the numerous annexes and small print of the Dayton agreement have tied the hands of
the international community and created a complex set of political institutions which
stymie the building of a strong centralised state and continue to enable ethnically-
based political parties to dominate the policy-making process. Dayton and, by