Dekonstrukcija jednog narativa: Analitičke greške i historijska selekcija u izvještavanju o Bosni i Hercegovini

Le résumé fourni par la source

This article presents a critical analysis of the theses advanced by Marie-Janine Calic in ZEIT Geschichte concerning contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, and the Bosniak population. The authors argue that the contested text reproduces narratives that place Bosnia and Herzegovina within a framework of cultural and civilizational suspicion, implicitly portraying the Bosniak-Muslim majority as a destabilizing factor within the broader European context. In the introductory section, the article identifies a long-standing pattern of stigmatization directed at Sarajevo and the Bosniaks, reflected in claims about the alleged “Arabization” and “Islamization” of the city. The authors emphasize that such assertions lack empirical grounding, noting that the volume of tourism and investment from Gulf countries in Bosnia and Herzegovina is lower than in a number of other European states, where similar developments do not provoke moral panic or civilizational alarm. In this regard, the article highlights an asymmetry in the treatment of Bosnia and Herzegovina compared to neighboring countries that also maintain intensive political and economic ties with Middle Eastern states, yet without comparable symbolic problematization. The central part of the article systematically challenges several key claims. First, it rejects the interpretation that Alija Izetbegović advocated a pan-Islamic empire in his Islamic Declaration, arguing that such readings stem from selective and politically instrumentalized interpretations from the 1980s rather than from the text itself. The document, it is stressed, did not constitute an operational political program nor did it form the basis of official policy after 1990. Second, the article disputes the claim of an organized “re-Islamization” allegedly pursued by the Party of Democratic Action (SDA) and the Islamic Community, arguing that there was no institutional attempt to introduce sharia law or mandatory religious dress, and that political practice remained within a secular constitutional framework. Third, it reassesses claims about “thousands of mujahideen,” emphasizing that the number of foreign fighters was limited, their long-term presence marginal, and that foreign volunteers were present on other warring sides as well. The article further examines the assertion that Sarajevo has lost its multicultural character, contending that demographic changes are primarily the result of war, siege, and ethnic cleansing rather than of a deliberate postwar nationalization project. It underscores that postwar migration patterns were shaped by the broader ethnic territorialization of the country, not exclusively by policies in the capital. The thesis that investments from Gulf countries are transforming Sarajevo into a “pan-Islamic city” is rejected as a conflation of economic presence with ideological influence, with the reminder that political institutions, legislation, and public life have remained secular and pluralistic. Particular attention is devoted to the claim that all sides made equal use of “religious propaganda” prior to the war. The authors argue that such equivalence ignores the asymmetrical nature of political mobilization and the judicially established facts regarding responsibility for the planning and execution of systematic crimes. Similarly, allegations of broad and coordinated arms deliveries from Muslim-majority countries are described as oversimplified and historically insufficiently substantiated, especially given the complex implications of the international arms embargo. The authors caution that interpretations of this kind may be instrumentalized within contemporary political contexts, allowing academic discourse to become inadvertently aligned with broader ideological agendas. In conclusion, the article maintains that the analyzed theses do not offer a balanced historiographical interpretation but rather a selective reading of the wartime and postwar context that portrays Bosnia and Herzegovina as a permanently “problematic” European space. Instead of an empirically grounded analysis of institutional and political processes, cultural-identitarian assumptions are foregrounded, thereby reproducing a paradigm of suspicion toward the Bosniak-Muslim community and its political legitimacy, while neglecting the complexity of the historical causes and consequences of the war.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.