Civil society in a divided society: Linking legitimacy and ethnicness of civil society organizations in Bosnia-Herzegovina

AuthorWillemijn Verkoren,Randall Puljek-Shank
Date01 June 2017
Published date01 June 2017
DOI10.1177/0010836716673088
Subject MatterArticles
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836716673088
Cooperation and Conflict
2017, Vol. 52(2) 184 –202
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0010836716673088
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
Civil society in a divided
society: Linking legitimacy
and ethnicness of civil society
organizations in
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Randall Puljek-Shank and Willemijn Verkoren
Abstract
Civil society (CS) strengthening is central to peacebuilding policies for divided, post-war
societies. However, it has been criticized for creating internationalized organizations without
local backing, unable to represent citizens’ interests. Based on in-depth empirical research in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, this article focuses on the legitimacy of CS organizations (CSOs). It explores
why legitimacy for donors rarely accompanies legitimacy for local actors. We hypothesized that
whilst donors avoid supporting mono-ethnic organizations, seen as problematic for peacebuilding,
‘ethnicness’ may provide local legitimacy. However, our analysis of CSOs’ ethnicness nuances
research characterizing organizations as either inclusive or divisive. Moreover, local legitimacy
is not based on ethnicness per se, but CSOs’ ability to skilfully interact with ethnically divided
constituencies and political structures. In addition, we offer novel explanations why few
organizations enjoy both donor and local legitimacy, including local mistrust of donors’ normative
frameworks and perceived lack of results. However, we also show that a combination of local
and donor legitimacy is possible, and explore this rare but interesting category of organizations.
Keywords
Bosnia-Herzegovina, civil society, divided societies, legitimacy, peacebuilding
Introduction
Since 1989, interventions following ethnic conflict have increasingly been based on
what has been called the ‘liberal peace’, anchored on democratic governance, civil soci-
ety (CS) and a free market (Richmond, 2008). CS, conceptualized as an intermediary
space between citizens and government, populated by organizations enabling
Corresponding author:
Randall Puljek-Shank, Centre for International Conflict Analysis and Management, Institute of Management
Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9108, 6500 HK Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Email: r.puljek-shank@fm.ru.nl
673088CAC0010.1177/0010836716673088Cooperation and ConflictPuljek-Shank and Verkoren
research-article2016
Article
Puljek-Shank and Verkoren 185
representation of citizens’ interests and discussion of public issues, has been increasingly
seen as vital to peace and democracy (Kaldor, 2003; Putnam, 1992). This has led to the
rise of ‘CS building’ in international policy on democratization and peacebuilding as a
way to reform state–society relations and foster responsive and legitimate institutions
that can effectively deal with conflict (Cousens et al., 2001; Woodward, 2007).
However, ‘CS-building’ programmes have been critiqued for focusing on ‘profes-
sional’ non-governmental organizations (NGOs) while overlooking grassroots institu-
tions, religious organizations, trade unions, community organizations, traditional
leadership institutions and informal networks (Howell and Pearce, 2001; Kostovicova,
2010). Bias in favour of ‘apolitical’, professional NGOs is seen to have reduced CS to a
technical exercise (Fagan, 2005; Pouligny, 2005), focused on organizations rendering
services rather than fostering society–state relations (Verkoren and Van Leeuwen, 2012).
In essence, these debates centre on the legitimacy of CS organizations (CSOs). Critics
of post-war ‘CS building’ emphasize the weak connection between foreign-supported
organizations and local constituencies. Many CSOs have been created in response to
available donor funding but with little local backing. Conversely, groups formed by citi-
zens uniting for social or political change either receive little assistance, or ‘NGO-ize’ to
become eligible for donor funding at the cost of growing distance from their constitu-
ency (Bebbington et al., 2008; Heideman, 2013; Hilhorst, 2003; Kostovicova, 2010).
Indeed, earlier research suggests that CSOs possessing what we call high donor legiti-
macy – access to support due to compliance with donors’ norms and standards – often
accompanies low local legitimacy, meaning support and confidence by local constituents
and societies (Grødeland, 2006; Pickering, 2006; Verkoren and Van Leeuwen, 2014).
International organizations engaged in peacebuilding have been encouraged to incorporate
local understandings of legitimacy throughout their operations (Williams and Mengistu,
2015). However, there is little research attempting to analyse local legitimacy and how it
develops. This is surprising given the shift in peace literature away from interventions and
their (lack of) results and towards the ‘local turn’ (e.g. Mac Ginty and Richmond, 2013).
Our investigation is based on in-depth empirical research in the ethnically divided,
post-war society of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the site of a major peacebuilding intervention
since 1995, with the highest value per capita of post-conflict aid anywhere in the world
(Zürcher, 2011). Whilst peacebuilding in Bosnia has been the subject of extensive
research (e.g. Belloni, 2001; Chandler, 2006; Fagan, 2005; Mac Ginty, 2011), the role
and legitimacy of local CSOs has not been a subject of systematic analysis.
We hypothesize that in ethnically divided societies such as Bosnia-Herzegovina, CSO
legitimacy cannot be considered without factoring in ethnicity and identity politics.
Locally grounded CSOs may be disregarded by foreign donors because they are often
mono-ethnic, leading donors to dismiss them as exclusive and polarizing (Verkoren and
Van Leeuwen, 2014). However, mono-ethnic CSOs may have more local legitimacy
because they can better represent constituents, with whom they share a similar culture,
history and political framing. Peacebuilding scholarship could thus benefit from empiri-
cal testing of assumptions regarding mono-ethnic CSOs and their relationship to ‘CS
building’ and peace.
In this light, we investigate the legitimacy of a sample of Bosnian CSOs using trian-
gulation of multiple methods. We are particularly interested in two questions: firstly,

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT