On Oct. 6, Bosnia-Herzegovina will have its eighth local elections since 1992. Simultaneously, the nation finds itself at a critical juncture. These elections seem far from a democratic exercise; they rather reveal deeper systemic issues that have plagued the country since the end of the Bosnian War. Pressure is high on both sides, the electorate and politicians. Will citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina have a chance to be heard in the elections or will elections be pro-forma? Will politicians find the strength to get out of the ethnic exclusivity rhetoric and focus on the meaningful transformation of Bosnia-Herzegovina to secure development in the current extremely volatile regional and geopolitics is yet to be seen. However, the democratic process appears increasingly compromised, and the potential for meaningful change seems elusive.

Democracy in name only

With 110 political parties and over 25,700 candidates competing for positions across 143 local communities, the sheer scale of participation suggests a vibrant democracy. Yet, this facade masks a more troubling reality. The registered voter count of 3.4 million exceeds the actual population, casting doubt on the integrity of the electoral rolls and raising the specter of voter fraud. The presence of international observers from the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), while necessary, highlights the deep concerns about the potential for electoral malpractice.

The High Representative, Christian Schmidt, has attempted to bolster the electoral process through amendments to the Election Law, notably barring individuals convicted of war crimes from candidacy. However, these changes are insufficient. The leniency in penalizing minor offenders and the limited introduction of ballot scanning in just 10% of polling stations leave the process vulnerable to manipulation. In a country where democracy is still in its formative stages, such vulnerabilities undermine public trust and the legitimacy of the electoral outcome.

Geopolitical context

To understand the fragility of Bosnia-Herzegovina’s democracy, one must look back to the Dayton Accords of 1995. As a result, two entities were created: the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, populated largely by Catholic Croats and Muslim Bosniaks, and the Republika Srpska, populated mostly by Orthodox Serbs. This agreement, while successful in ending the Bosnian War, created a complex political structure that institutionalized ethnic divisions and entrenched a political elite more focused on maintaining power than on governance. Over the years, the international community, including the European Union and NATO, has played a significant role in maintaining stability. However, their involvement has also created a dependency that has hindered the development of an autonomous democratic culture.

The upcoming local elections must be viewed within this broader context. They are not just about selecting local leaders but about testing the resilience of Bosnia-Herzegovina’s democratic institutions. The involvement of actors such as Croatia, the Republika Srpska defiance and Serbia’s latent involvement in influencing the political landscape in Bosnia-Herzegovina adds another layer of complexity. It seems that Republika Srpska’s defiance is critical because they are one entity with a unified government structure that works just for Bosnian Serb’s interests. It can be argued that the main source for defiance comes from perceptions that the Bosnian Federation is an obstacle to Republika Srpska’s development. Hence, its president, Milorad Dodik, has vowed to withdraw the Republika Srpska from Bosnia-Herzegovina’s national institutions.

Domination of elites

The conduct of Bosnia-Herzegovina’s Central Election Commission (CIK) is emblematic of the country’s democratic dysfunction. Irena Hadziabdic, whose term as a member of the CIK has expired, continues to oversee the electoral process, raising serious questions about the commission’s legitimacy. Her proposal to involve the armed forces in distributing electoral materials is particularly troubling. This move, which aligns with the political strategies of figures like Dodik, threatens to militarize the electoral process, undermining the already fragile democratic institutions. Dodik has been Republika Srpska’s president since 2022. He served in this role from 2010 to 2018 before being a member of Bosnia-Herzegovina’s three-member collective presidency from 2018 to 2022. Lately, he has been perceived as allied to Russia. Russian weapons suppliers have helped arm the Republika Srpska’s police forces, while Russian mercenaries have trained members of Bosnian Serb paramilitary groups. By doing so, he is adding complexity to the voter turnouts.

The involvement of the armed forces in such a capacity not only discredits a key state institution but also raises the risk of electoral manipulation. This strategy appears designed to either delay the elections or merge them with the 2026 parliamentary elections, thereby extending the tenure of current local officials. The political elite in Bosnia-Herzegovina, shielded by a veneer of democratic legitimacy, continues to operate within an intersubjective reality – one that is increasingly disconnected from the principles of democratic governance.

The local elections in key areas such as Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Mostar and Brcko District are poised to be battlegrounds for control. However, the broader picture reveals a populace that has become increasingly apathetic toward politics. Despite the widespread distrust of political parties and politicians, the perception is that these same entities remain the primary vehicles for personal advancement in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The general mindset is: "Why should I vote when nothing will change?"

Voter apathy, fueled by a lack of critical engagement and the perception that the political process is rigged, further undermines the potential for meaningful change. Instead of addressing urgent local issues – such as infrastructure, public services and economic development – candidates often focus on grandiose, abstract topics that do little to improve the daily lives of citizens. This disconnection between political rhetoric and local realities contributes to the growing disillusionment with the democratic process.

Scenarios for future

As Bosnia-Herzegovina heads into these local elections, those outcomes could set the tone for the country’s political future. Here are three potential scenarios.

The most likely scenario is entrenched stagnation: The elections proceed with minimal changes, allowing the current political elite to maintain their dominance. Voter apathy deepens, and the democratic process becomes increasingly performative, with little impact on governance or accountability. This scenario would likely lead to continued political stagnation and a widening gap between the government and the governed.

The less likely scenario is civic awakening and reform: Against the backdrop of widespread skepticism, voters mobilize to challenge the status quo. A significant shift in local governance occurs, with new political actors emerging who prioritize transparency, accountability and local issues. This scenario, while optimistic, could pave the way for broader democratic reforms and a renewed sense of civic engagement, potentially altering the political landscape in Bosnia-Herzegovina for a better future.

The most dangerous scenario is an electoral crisis and unrest: Reports of widespread fraud and manipulation could lead to public outcry, possibly triggering protests and political instability. The involvement of the armed forces in the electoral process exacerbates tensions, resulting in a prolonged crisis that could delay or derail future elections. This scenario could plunge the country into a deeper political and institutional crisis. The potential regional spillover is not excluded.

The upcoming local elections are more than just a routine democratic exercise; they are a test of Bosnia-Herzegovina’s state resilience. Whether these elections will bring about meaningful change or reinforce the status quo remains uncertain. What is clear is that the political rhetoric of ethnic exclusivity didn’t bring any good to the state. However, the future of Bosnia-Herzegovina state depends not just on the outcomes of these elections but on the ability of its citizens to demand and effect real change.