The Major Strengths and Weaknesses of the Dayton Settlement

The Dayton settlement, which formally ended the armed conflict in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995, has been the subject of much debate ever since it was created. Although it was considered a success to develop any peace agreement that Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats would all agree upon, it turned out that Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats have disagreed about it at the time of its signing and ever since. Some of the original criticisms have endured through the ten years that have passed since Dayton, and some new ones have evolved over time.

One original and enduring criticism of Dayton is that it defined politics by ethnic groups, essentially recognizing the legitimacy of the war that was fought on the basis of ethnic differences. For instance, Dayton established a three-president system for the Bosnian government, stipulating that there must be a Bosniak president, Serb president, and Croat president. This arrangement is inherently unfair to Bosnians who are not or do not consider themselves as belonging to one of those three ethnic groups. Furthermore, the explicit use of ethnicity in Dayton has only strengthened the separateness of the ethnic identities within Bosnia. Ever since the agreement, Serbs have used Dayton to justify the separate status of Republika Srpska, while Croats have used the existence of Republika Srpska (provided for in Dayton) to argue for the creation of a separate Croat entity.

Ten years after the signing of Dayton, different people will give different answers when asked whether or not the original criticisms were justified depending on who the person is and what criticism is mentioned. However, one criticism that seems fairly universal throughout Bosnia (or at least, as universal as anything can be in that particular country) is that the High Representative has overstayed his welcome. As stated by Bosnia's Foreign Minister, Mr. Ivaniæ, the presence of the High Representative with all of his immense powers gives the impression that Bosnia cannot take care of itself. Many individuals from various ethnic groups have compared the High Representative to an overprotective parent; they argue that when the time comes, parents must let their children have freedom to make their own choices (even if those choices are the wrong ones). According to Foreign Minister Ivaniæ, while the High Representative did accomplish some valuable things after the war, after ten years it is time for Bosnia's "king" to leave. If there is one thing that most Bosnians can agree on, it is that Bosnians should be able to govern themselves.

In retrospect, like most constitutions and peace agreements, Dayton had some major strengths and some major weaknesses. Depending on who is asked, the weak central government established by Dayton for Bosnia could be the biggest strength or the biggest weakness of the agreement. Serbs, for instance, naturally prefer strong Entity-level government in order to maintain the separateness of Republika Srpska. Bosniaks, however, are more inclined to favor a strong central government in order to gain more influence over the entire country. Even the OSCE is conflicted on the matter, as it does not institutionally support changing the constitution to create a stronger central government, but admits that a stronger central government is probably the only way to achieve its goals. For instance, the OSCE is currently forced to try to influence local governments to enact certain fundamental laws (such as those regulating education) because the central government cannot force localities to adopt them. However, still other commentators have suggested that a strong centralized government in Bosnia would only lead to further conflict because of the security dilemma effect that might be spawned if one ethnic group gained power of the government.

As many observers have noted, Dayton was a peace settlement, not a constitution that was meant to last throughout the ages of eternity. Dayton did formally end the war in Bosnia, but it is time to replace the peace agreement with a true constitution that is worthy of that name.