|
Post by manijak on Apr 13, 2009 9:22:40 GMT -5
Na predstojećem kongresu SDA, koji će biti održan 26. maja ove godine, će se izabrati i novi predsjednik Stranke. Za sada tri ozbiljna kandidata su najavila da će prihvatiti kandidaturu, predsjednik Sulejman Tihić, zamjenik predsjednika Adnan Terzić i potpredsjednik Bakir Izetbegović... ...Veliko i pozitivno iznenađenje za bh javnost, ali i unutar SDA, predstavlja najava kandidature zamjenika stranke i nekadašnjeg predsjedavajućeg Vijeća ministara BiH Adnana Terzića. U ekskluzivnom intervjuu za Svevijesti.ba, Adnan Terzić govori o motivima kandidature za predsjedničko mjesto, reakcijama unutar SDA, Zašto smatra da je bolji kandidat od Sulejmana Tihića i Bakira Izetbegovića, svojim prednostima na Kongresu, Kako je SDA vezala ruke federalnoj Vladi, ekonomskoj situaciji u zemlji, Prudskom procesu, svom poslovnom angažmanu, Tenisu ... * Koji je najvažniji motiv Vaše kandidature za predsjedničko mjesto u SDA? TERZIĆ: Ja tražim priliku da Kongresu ponudim svoj ekonomski i politički program. Moj motiv je da kroz tu funkciju vratim povjerenje ljudima u budućnost ove države. Ne idem u borbu ni sa Tihićem ni sa Izetbegovićem, nego ću pokušati da dobijem podršku za projekte koji će, siguran sam, pomoći i državi i stranci i narodu... * Kakve su reakcije unutar SDA na Vašu najavu da ćete prihvatiti kandidaturu za predsjednika stranke? TERZIĆ: Mislim da su se mnogi iznenadili i da ih je moja namjera zatekla. Ja sam sada poslovan čovjek, a zbog načina na koji sam izašao iz aktivne politike smatrali su da nemam ambicije za ponovno aktiviranje. Ali definitivno su pozitivne reakcije, što ne znači da će takav biti i ishod. Ljudima je dosta stereotipova i podržavaju opciju sa više kandidata jer u njoj vide proces demokratizacije stranke. * Kakav je Vaš odnos prema potencijalnim protukandidatima Sulejmanu Tihiću i Bakiru Izetbegoviću. Na čemu im možete odati priznaje, i na čemu im najviše zamjerate u vođenju stranke? TERZIĆ: Obojicu ih cijenim, ne samo lično nego i po njihovom angažmanu u stranci sve ove godine. To su nesporni rezultati. Međutim smatram da smo pogrešno izabranim fokusima našeg političkog djelovanja totalno pasivirali stranku i od lidera strateških promjena i reformi pretvorili se u puke, dnevno-političke analitičare procesa koje nameću drugi. Smatram da nam ni priča o Prudu ni pozivanje na rahmetli predsjednika Izetbegovića neće pomoći da riješimo ključna pitanja za ovu zemlju koja su danas isključivo ekonomske naravi. * Tihić svoje šanse vidi u svom životnom, radnom i bogatom političkom iskustvu u stranci i bh. institucijama; Izetbegović je najavio da bi stranku vodio kao (bivši lider SDA Alija) Izetbegović, a ne kao Tihić. U kojem bi pravcu Vi vodili SDA, šta to novo i drugačije nudite? TERZIĆ: SDA da bi radila na demokratizaciji društva mora prvo demokratizirati sebe. Nisu tu potrebne neke radikalne promjene, ali ponekad se sa malim pomacima mogu napraviri ogromni rezultati. Moja vizija stranke je usmjerena prema snazi projekata koji vodi, a ne prema snazi lidera. SDA ima najveću infrastrukturu i tu strukturu treba usmjeriti prema realizaciji velikog broja projekata koji će ojačati i stranku i državu, a ne prema stvaranju kulta lidera. * Iako ste drugi čovjek SDA nije Vas bilo u javnosti, tačnije kako ste par puta naveli predsjedništvo SDA se opredijelilo protiv Vas? Koji su razlozi ovakvog poteza predsjedništva stranke? TERZIĆ: Mislim da je to u prvom redu neshvatanje bitnosti procesa koje sam vodio. Nedovoljna hrabrost da se uhvate u koštac sa neophodnim reformama u svim segmentima društva na kojima sam insistirao. A ima malo i ličnih sujeta. * U kojoj strukturi delegata vidite Vaše potencijalene glasače? Da li su to delegati koji su nezadovoljni Tihićem i Izetbegovićem, računate li na glasove Bošnjaka iz Republike Srpske i da li očekujete da Vas podrže delegati iz Travnika? TERZIĆ: Svi oni koji su svjesni da pasivna SDA ne vrijedi ni sebi, ni Bošnjacima, ni državi glasat će za mene. Normalno da ću dobiti podršku delegata iz Travnika, ali sam siguran da će većina delegata sa cijelog područja BiH dati podršku mom programu. Krajnje je vrijeme da prelomimo stvari i da promjenimo odnos i prema sebi i prema drugima. Rest of interview: dijaspora.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11515&ac=0&Itemid=36
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Apr 13, 2009 9:25:56 GMT -5
I've always liked him, this was an interesting question and response:
* Tihić svoje šanse vidi u svom životnom, radnom i bogatom političkom iskustvu u stranci i bh. institucijama; Izetbegović je najavio da bi stranku vodio kao (bivši lider SDA Alija) Izetbegović, a ne kao Tihić. U kojem bi pravcu Vi vodili SDA, šta to novo i drugačije nudite?
TERZIĆ: SDA da bi radila na demokratizaciji društva mora prvo demokratizirati sebe. Nisu tu potrebne neke radikalne promjene, ali ponekad se sa malim pomacima mogu napraviri ogromni rezultati. Moja vizija stranke je usmjerena prema snazi projekata koji vodi, a ne prema snazi lidera. SDA ima najveću infrastrukturu i tu strukturu treba usmjeriti prema realizaciji velikog broja projekata koji će ojačati i stranku i državu, a ne prema stvaranju kulta lidera. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From everything I've seen..this guy seems to want to concentrate on actually being a good party and working on the economy. I really like that direction.
Its actually a really good strategy because SBIH is a party with very little organization and is set-up to basically only argue about the consitituion/RS. People have to figure out that SBIH does not care about the economy or other questions. So many of the SBIH party members have quit recently because they have realized this.
|
|
|
Post by zgembo on Apr 13, 2009 14:21:54 GMT -5
More parties focused on improving the economy would be good for Bosnia, that's for sure. Parties like SBiH don't achieve anything. If you want to change the constitutional status quo, you cannot do it by raising inter-ethnic tensions. Thats only possible if you improve the economy and make the society more liberal.
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Apr 14, 2009 9:17:35 GMT -5
More parties focused on improving the economy would be good for Bosnia, that's for sure. Parties like SBiH don't achieve anything. If you want to change the constitutional status quo, you cannot do it by raising inter-ethnic tensions. Thats only possible if you improve the economy and make the society more liberal. Yeah, the only problem being, even in economics there is a division along ethnic lines. Sadly you see politicians, especially in RS, starting statements like "As a Serb, this is what I think we should do...". You as a Serb? what? When did all Serbs start having the same views on the economy? They do it that way because Serb politicians, no matter what party, think RS is "theirs", Federation is muslim and croat..so we have to meet somewhere in the middle. Yes, meet somewhere in the middle..that sounds familiar. When are we going to start doing the RIGHT thing for the BIH economy for ALL peoples?
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Apr 14, 2009 9:20:53 GMT -5
And this is actually where Haris Silajdzic is right when he says this is actually breaking the dayton agreement. One of the rules in Dayton is that the politicians involved have to work for ALL peoples in BIH. You can't start statements as "I as a Serb think this..." when it comes to the economy or anything but suggest RS is open and welcoming to other groups.
This is why Bosniaks don't buy that RS is open to us. And this is why some people want to get rid of it. If Serb politicians actually worked for the three ethnic groups, I don't think RS as an entity would be questioned as much or would so many people ask for its removal.
|
|
|
Post by Unleashed on Apr 14, 2009 12:47:19 GMT -5
RS is open to business with the Federation and Croatia. RS's biggest trading partner is the Federation and Croatia , ironically. Croatian business communities rate RS as a business friendly community as the RS government is a lot less regulatory than the Federation govt. Part of the problem is that the Federation govt followed the old Yugoslav model of entrenched bureaucracies and this isn't only because of ethnic divisions. Its an old habit that's hard to break and the Serbs in Bosnia have had better success at changing government.
A cetnik is still a dirty cigan but you have to face the facts.
|
|
|
Post by Unleashed on Apr 14, 2009 12:51:59 GMT -5
Also interesting to note that in the Federation the areas that are the most business friendly ( i.e. less abused by the government) are mostly the Croat communities. This isn't because of some kind of ethnic advantage but for practical reasons. Places like the old Herceg-Bosna community are far more decentralized from the Bosnian government and handle most things on the regional level which means less government bureaucracy. Some other communities where Bosniaks are dominate but decentralized tend to do well too.
|
|
|
Post by Unleashed on Apr 14, 2009 13:01:11 GMT -5
Btw, any talk of trying to make 'economic regions' by force is self-defeating. In economic logic it might make sense but it wouldn't work if it was forced with the proviso that ethnically divided regions disintegrate. People there first care about ethnic solidarity and only after that economic issues.
Think about it. If most people there cared about economic proposals before ethnic ones then everyone would've listened to Ante Markovic's market reforms before Yugoslavia disintegrated. Economic regions which necessitate the collapse of ethnically divided territory would be useless as the focus would be on ethnic tensions again and economy would take a back seat.
Simply put. In Bosnia today, the ethnic question must be settled before the economic one. From a certain perspective that might be sad and irrational but it is the reality on the ground.
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Apr 14, 2009 14:32:37 GMT -5
Again this centralization bullshit, it's getting old... the FBiH government's budget is like 1,2 billion KMs which is higher than the Kanton Sarajevo budget by only 360 millions, so if 1 kanton only has around the same money of the whole government I'll let you do the math... and first you praise RS which is centralized, than talk how actually decentralization is better, I don't quite understand.
|
|
paja
Membrum
Posts: 193
|
Post by paja on Apr 14, 2009 14:42:10 GMT -5
Economics is actually a facet of social science which affects everything. Countries with higher economic stability and less socio-economic discrepancy enjoy greater equality and freedom. Therefore, if the economic situation bettered so would the conditions for the citizens. An easy illustration would be to compare 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world countries. Countries with a lesser standard of living enjoy less equality and liberty than their counterparts. Also, another illustration is between education and progress. More education is a result of a higher standard of living, and since education imparts knowledge of egalitarianism, education can reconcile ethnic difference. Thus, it is crucial to raise the economic well-being of a country.
|
|
|
Post by zgembo on Apr 14, 2009 15:39:26 GMT -5
A cetnik is still a dirty cigan but you have to face the facts. This is why it's impossible to ever have an intelligent conversation on this forum. It's also why it's impossible to get anything accomplished in Bosnia (crude nationalism and ignorance get a lot more attention/respect than being respectful towards other groups). Simply put. In Bosnia today, the ethnic question must be settled before the economic one. From a certain perspective that might be sad and irrational but it is the reality on the ground. That's the cue for inaction, for not getting anything done. The ethnic question can never be really settled without war, and a compromise certainly can't be reached when everyone is poor and ethnic tensions are high (like today). Improvement in the economic standard of living is a precursor to liberalizing the society and to making compromises to the constitution. When people are fed and content they are more likely to think rationally. That's just a simple fact of life. The biggest problem with Bosnia is that politicians will always make nationalistic statements when they want to get attention (or when they want to get their way). That keeps ethnic tensions up and stagnates development. If they would just shut up and do work on improving the economy the country would make great strides. They are unwilling to do that though. That kind of politician doesn't get into government. Dodik did, but needed to spout nationalism in order to do it (lucky for Serbs that's not the only thing he does like Silajdzic).
|
|
|
Post by Username on Apr 14, 2009 21:03:57 GMT -5
Economics is actually a facet of social science which affects everything. Countries with higher economic stability and less socio-economic discrepancy enjoy greater equality and freedom. Therefore, if the economic situation bettered so would the conditions for the citizens. An easy illustration would be to compare 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world countries. Countries with a lesser standard of living enjoy less equality and liberty than their counterparts. Also, another illustration is between education and progress. More education is a result of a higher standard of living, and since education imparts knowledge of egalitarianism, education can reconcile ethnic difference. Thus, it is crucial to raise the economic well-being of a country. Im going to have to disagree with you. You seem to be confusing the causes with the effects... You will never see a strong economy without underlying strong political and social factors to act as the base. More education is not a result of a higher standard of living. Economists argue that it's the other way around. The more educated a society is, the more it will encourage further economic growth (for obvious reasons - the more educated you are, the more productive you will be, leading to a wealthier country). And a more popular argument than the one you suggested: that countries with fewer freedoms and less equality are not caused by the state of the economy. Many economists argue it's the other way around - countries with fewer democratic principles have lower standards of living because the lack of democratic principles inhibits economic growth (e.g. who would want to invest in a non-democratic country?). So those factors are a cause, rather than effects of economics. With all that said, I think Bosnia's problems are rooted in more than just economics. And once those problems are solved; only then can the country focus on economics and let the economy grow... Focusing on economics first is a waste of time, because the situation in Bosnia does not meet the level of political and social harmony and stability for the economy to be able to grow at its full potential. So I fully agree with Unleashed's statements. The societal and political problem must be solved FIRST, before Bosnia can even start thinking about economic growth. Of course, it won't hurt to complement the two, but the focus must lie on the political and social problems.
|
|
|
Post by zgembo on Apr 14, 2009 22:54:25 GMT -5
But there is a stalemate in solving political problems. Only war can solve what the sides seem to want (the abolishing of RS, or the independence of RS).
And your cause and effect theory is debatable. Italy had political instability after WW2, something like 50 different governments in 50 years yet still made incredible economic progress. Israel makes economic progress despite having its existence continually threatened.
Bosnia's "problems" are unsolvable. Maybe you can have everyone accept the current structure, but nobody seems to want to do that (or at least the politicians are not encouraging the people to do that). Delaying economic progress because of it doesn't achieve anything though. You can implement many economic measures in the current constitutional make-up of Bosnia (eliminating bureaucracy & corruption, scaling back on benefits for war veterans, privatization, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by Username on Apr 14, 2009 23:28:31 GMT -5
Sorry - when I say "political and social factors", what I really mean is a stable, efficient, democracy within a united state. Without it, you will not see a country go above and beyond economically... Bosnia may be growing at rates of 3-5% (which is not all that great for such a small economy), but if it the foundations are fixed, it could achieve much greater economic growth... levels that Romanians are seeing now.
So, Italy has that stable democratic element which allowed it to be a success economically. The fact that there have been 50 different governments in 50 years is a result of the political system - not a result of how strong/weak their democracy is... and believe it or not, but that instability was intended by the original designers (for various reasons which I won't get into, but basically, due to their past, when the system was being designed, Italians were very much scared of the powers of government), and regardless of what people say, many political scientists believe it still has a good level of efficiency.
So instability doesn't automatically mean inefficiency.
Don't be such a pessimist. Of course Bosnia's problems are solvable. People will get fed up at some point, and will finally learn that the current politicians in power are not working for them, but for themselves. It's bound to happen soon. The EU will be a huge incentive for change.
Again, I didn't advocate actually delaying economic progress... that would be a pretty odd policy. Like I said, complementing it with the other changes would be a good thing... but you cannot solely rely on economic progress to actually pull Bosnia to riches, as ironic as that sounds... e.g. eliminating bureaucracy and corruption (a major problem), which you suggested, is not an economic measure - it's a political, judicial one that roots from that "stable democratic" factor that I said was a prereq to strong economies.
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Apr 15, 2009 6:26:18 GMT -5
Can the Serbs answer how the NATIONAL economic situation will be easier to negotiate?
|
|
|
Post by zgembo on Apr 15, 2009 12:34:39 GMT -5
What exactly are you hoping to hear manijak? That Serbs will give up RS, that they will give up autonomy?
First step is for Bosniak politicians to stop calling for the abolishment of RS, to accept RS as a partner. Second step is for RS politicians to stop calling for independence (which they only seem to do after threats of abolishment are made anyway). Finally, it will come down to both of the sides working as partners, making decisions and plans to improve the economy. Both have incentive to improve the economy so that shouldn't too hard.
The key is to not colour any economic plans with desires to change the power relationship or constitutional make-up of the country. The way Bosniak politicians present things, the only way to improve the economy is to abolish RS and make economic regions... or for certain things to be transferred to the central governments hands. And when Serbs refuse to accept that they present them as stalling economic progress. It's all bullshit which decreases trust between the sides and raises tension. You have to be genuine and respectful in dealing with the other side (but that seems impossible in Bosnia, especially because of the scars left by the war).
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Apr 15, 2009 15:23:55 GMT -5
What exactly are you hoping to hear manijak? That Serbs will give up RS, that they will give up autonomy? Nope. I'm just talking "logistics". You stated that we should move on to economic questions for the country and that we could more easier solve those questions..so I'm asking how. You made some relevant points, points that I agree with. However, do you not agree that the statements by Serb politicians where they state "As a Serb..this is what I think of the economy", are not troubling? Precisley the same issue when we talk about the constitution. We can't get a deal for the constitution because each ethnicity is looking at it only from their perspective and they don't want to lose in that deal. It seems for the BIH economy, they are thinking similary. If you don't deny that assertion...how can we make decisions for the BIH economy if Serbs are protecting the interests of RS, Bosniaks federation, and who knows what the Croats are doing or where they stand. I understand national politics always favour someone ..some regions get screwed, the majority wins those battles (if you look at Canada..if the Liberals get in power, the West gets screwed..if the Cons get in power the West get their ideas implemented) But in BIH, three different sides have the VETO to stop any bill if it doesn't work for their side. This hurts the nation greatly. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also really important to note: Under Dayton, RS politicians are suppose to work for all three peoples.(and so is the federation) But when it comes to discussing things that should unite us, BIH economics, the Serb politicians from RS deny any plan by saying it doesn't work for Serbs - their ethnic group. So wait a second..these politicians are not working for Bosniaks/Croats that live in RS? Is there any wonder why Bosniaks want that entity erased? Politicians can work for their AREA, for the people of the region they come from, but when you state you are working for Serbs..and its not good for Serbs..it means you dont' care about the other citizens. So IMO, unless there are major changes, this direction is not going to work any better.
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Apr 15, 2009 15:50:58 GMT -5
So IMO, us Bosniaks don't expect anything from you. We don't expect RS to go anywhere, we don't expect new economic regions to be created..but you tell me, without the system changing, how deals will be made if the logistics are exactly the same.
|
|
|
Post by zgembo on Apr 15, 2009 17:45:17 GMT -5
I explained how. The attitude and approach of the sides has to change. Accept the current structure. Accept that there is a veto. And try working within that structure. Every side has a veto, yes. But improving the economy for the benefit of all benefits all sides too, which would make the veto unnecessary. Quebec can veto anything the Canadian government does through the notwithstanding clause, but the country still progresses and deals that benefit everyone are not stalled.
You make it seem like Serb politicians only caring about Serbs (or RS) is unusual. Every side can only care about their own and still work with the other sides to benefit everyone mutually.
|
|
|
Post by zgembo on Apr 15, 2009 17:50:51 GMT -5
You are falling into that same trap of colouring economic issues with national issues. The veto in Bosnia is a heavily national issue. It is a huge protective mechanism for Serbs and Croats. Linking it with economic progress is just an underhanded way of achieving some nationalistic goal by dressing it up as an economic goal.
Progress can be made, and the economy can be improved, without changing the balance of power of the ethnic groups/entities. Problem is, most of the politicians in Bosnia care more about that balance of power than they do about the economy. That is the BIGGEST problem, and that's what actually needs to be changed.
|
|