Leadership Amidst Transition and Liminality: The Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Former Yugoslavia

A history of empires and communism created a liminality in the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H). When leaders throughout the Soviet Bloc began to discredit communism, an opportunity opened for the leadership of B&H to unify the popular will and transition to democracy. Yet, the appropriate leadership, a master of ceremonies from van Gennep and Turner’s perspectives, a philosopher from Plato’s view was absent. Politicians instead repackaged themselves as nationalists and supported extremists and divisive actions, culminating in war. Subsequently, the mechanisms associated with the Dayton Peace Accords conceived to return B&H to normalcy instead made the divisive liminality a new normal as power sharing elites benefitted if they held to nationalist claims and ignored societal reintegration. This, study examines the reasoning and tactics of elites who rejected the mantle of good leadership and now abuse the spirit of the constitutional and institutional power sharing mechanisms to maintain the schizophrenic division and conflict. It also introduces the type of virtuous leader states needed for transition.


The Rupture of Order and the Necessity of Leadership
The late 1980s witnessed rupturing of the communist political order throughout Central and Eastern Europe. Certain leaders, such as Gorbachev, opened the windows to these events which unleashed the will to break from oppressive, imitative forces and myopic world-views. Yet, the outcome of these opportunities varied with some societies transitioning to democracy, while movements in other regions were frustrated and stalled. Notable is the role and nature of leadership in these critical transitory times.
Horvath discusses that solution of such crises requires a special leader, consistent with Elias' view, with more, not less, ability and virtue, and operating above the threshold of liminality (1998). Accordingly, the German Democratic Republic (DDR) benefitted from its association with the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) which served a rational, masterful role in the reintegration of the people of the DDR into freedom. Helmut Kohl and the German state offer a modern charismatic rationalized leadership model.
Vaclav Havel as President of Czechoslovakia focused upon the power of the powerless, supervised the Velvet Revolution and Divorce, and guided the communitas through the pain of transition to its emergence as a free society. He acted as a genuine master of ceremonies. By contrast, some of the republics of the former Yugoslavia were impeded because the communitas fell under the power of elites who themselves existed in the margins, mobilized people against imaginary enemies, and perpetuated the permanent transition and liminality. Given the history and tradition of cosmopolitan tolerance within B&H, the outcome seemed shocking, unless one views these processes through the politics of irrationality and emergence of Horvath's tricksters. For example, Milošević and Karadžić mastered the tricksters' politics well: they understood that nationalistic propaganda must contain an element of historically accepted myth (Zimmerman, 1996;Danner, 1998;Karadžić, 2016, p. 4;Milošević, 2001).
The irrational aims contained elements of reality.
Yet, the reality was that B&H long had served as a model of multiculturalism in which the people did not question the ability to coexist. In the 1980s and early 1990s, liberal thought via the media and art scene, such as Top Lista Nadrealista, developed in B&H, and then spread to other Yugoslav republics. Notably, the initial events of the Sarajevo Spring's peaceful revolution of 1992, illustrated the will of the communitas and democratic leadership to break with the communist identity. People, united from various demographic backgrounds, desired to leave behind one identity and the associated liminal pseudo-reality, and cross into a new milieu which not only existed as a concept in the collective mind, but also was being realized elsewhere in the region. The people of the Sarajevo Spring demonstrated their wish to transition to freedom. Yet, liminality prevailed, and thus uncertainty and ambiguity perpetuated popular confusion regarding the real meanings of communism, nationalism, and freedom. The necessary type of appropriate leadership, a master of ceremonies, struggled to take hold because elites perceived such virtuous Platonic leaders as a threat. As Raif Dizdarević highlights, this created a void for nationalists, such as Šešelj and Izetbegović, as well as political opportunists, such as Milošević and Karadžić, to manipulate transitory individuals and societies. To be clear, the critical detail must not be the mythical ancient hatred or inability of certain peoples to consolidate democracy, but rather Turner's "betwixt-and-between" space www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ape Advances in Politics and Economics Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 21 Published by SCHOLINK INC.
affecting identity as leaders opted not to orchestrate, or even support, the transition out of liminality (v. Gennep, 1960;Turner, 1967Turner, , 1969 what is the proper or improper "statesman" or "leader" but rather because of how leadership is forged. Former Yugoslavia, particularly the Balkan region, is comprised of a diverse population with relationships among and within heterogeneous communities. Since the recent wars (1991)(1992)(1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001) in that region, the once nicely varied social webs now are forced to abandon this rich tapestry for a hardened, grid-like utopian design of uniformity institutionalized in and through the DPA (Tešan, 2018). This study posits that the essence, to tap into Plato's vocabulary, of designs and architecture of political institutions such as DPA, should support heterogeneous populations and heterogeneous environs consistent with their societal webs. Problems perpetuate or develop when post-war political institutions (such as the DPA or Weber's Versailles "Peace") do not mirror the essence of the pre-war relationship but rather are post-war shadows, offering leaders conditioned by conflict and liminality.
As Annas argues, Plato's Republic forged its theory on "forms and essentialism." Yet, Plato does not try to prove that homogeneity is better than heterogeneity. He is not deterministic in that sense, but he seems to show that in this world (nature) there are many truths, depending on one's background or worldview. His attempt is not to hammer down a single and right objective one-size-fits-all universal approach thence utopian Republic. Rather he encourages a method of how-to search for the essence relative to the ever-changing material world, in this case a democratic polity and adequate leadership.
According to Plato, a "form" exists apart from specific physical manifestations, however, it would be inaccurate to say that Plato qua Socrates when building the theory of the Republic and its leadership would argue that heterogeneity is wrong. For example, Socrates highlights a boy who recognizes a triangle in the sand, and Socrates deduces that there exists some universally applicable truth. Yet, related to this case's concern about leadership in transitory environments, Plato did not argue that forms follow a strict definition of uniformity, but that the method towards those "essences" does. The love of wisdom or philo-sophia is the essential contribution of Statesman and/or the Republic to this case.
Regarding leadership as a "form," problems develop when the essence of leadership is not derived from the ideal form not only with regard to philosophy but also with the character of the given society in time and place. Indeed, real forms must be distinguished from false forms. Considering Plato's Cave analogy in the Republic, in this temporal world when a designer or architect (the leadership) constructs an object, the construction is based on the non-being, or to borrow Plato's vocabulary the object exists as the "shadow" of the real ideal. Very rarely an architect, in this case Yugoslavian politicians as well as the statesmen who designed the Dayton Peace Accords, can understand the real essence. The shadows rather than the real essence are taken for the "truth." The onus falls on the inversion of the shadows and forms, and hence a hyper anthropocentric design method purporting not just the mistaken appearance for reality, but more importantly its wider effect on the social relations, leaders and polity.
Consequently, B&H's liminal socio-political state can best be described as the Republic in reverse. Real democracy, to be worthy of its name, wrestles in constant flux under the pressures of polyphony and heterogeneity. Such real democracy without real leadership, however, degenerates during transitory moments. The liminality of communism, transition, and war stressed the heterogeneity of B&H.
Sophist elites mimicked democracy; elites ignored democracy's need for responsive oscillation.
Although voices for polyphonic democracy arose, these demands encountered first communist bureaucrats and then nationalist voices. The former feared the uncertainty of democracy; the latter railed that pluralist democracy was an existential threat and that disciplined, managed, national democracy was essential.
Raif Dizdarević witnessed the stagnant leadership who fearing the uncertainty of democracy, created the void in which tricksters emerged and agitated. Personal interviews with him are key evidence for this research. As a party and government leader, Dizdarević's authority depended upon legal-rational legitimacy, a legitimacy which he recognized was waning. He realized the need for dedicated leaders and lamented the presence of opportunists within the post-Tito party. He worried Yugoslavia would struggle to evolve into a democratic modern state, because it lacked professional leadership, civic associations and the ability to address socio-economic challenges (Tešan, 2007). Thus, communist legacy, rather than multinational federalism, was the primary impediment, but xenophobic nationalism became a product of failed leadership. Weakness in the central government allowed authoritarian nationalist leaders on the periphery in the republics to fill the void and manipulate the masses (Tešan, 2007). Indeed, perhaps under Dizdarević's guidance the epistemological gap might have been avoided, providing conditions for transition.
Dizdarević identifies the dual legacies of the system and Tito's charisma as the fundamental problem, citing "…history dragging into the future…[W]e (communists) take all of the responsibility for the collapse of Yugoslavia…had Tito been surrounded with professional experts with new ideas, energy and visions, perhaps the Balkans today would look much different" (Tešan, 2007, p. 25). His perspective is insightful: Dizdarević notes the benefits and drawbacks of charismatic leadership while regretting the lack of professional politicians and experts especially during times of change. The leadership did not reform and embrace democracy; the nationalist opportunists embraced the charismatic mantle. He also implies the problem of the iron cage-when bureaucratic rationality becomes stifling its expertise requires revitalization. In times of crises, leaders must respond to the oscillation of the demos while stressing unity of purpose and the common good. Lacking such leadership, the void provided space for tricksters and chaos (Tešan, 2007). Accordingly, the Anti-Bureaucratic Revolution, critical of stagnant government operations and party ideology, became one element of Milošević's appeal in the republics (Milošević, 1999).
Indeed, following Tito's death in the mid-1980s, the Yugoslav elite, or in Đilas' terms The New Class, began to splinter, dismantling the inter-elite cooperation necessary for leadership, reform, and a democratic future (1957). Society needed new leadership focused on the common good, but it was lacking. Dizdarevi ćlaments, "…some members brought their own men…their favourites…this was detrimental to Yugoslavia's survival as a federation of different nationalities" (Tešan, 2007, p. 24). By the late '80s, "cooperation was turning into antagonistic competition" and "the federation acted as fireman. We went from one region to another putting the fire out" (Tešan, 2007, p. 25). Therefore, in a critical moment, the leadership was incapable of political innovation or response to citizens' needs, and rather focused on maintaining its position as Đilas predicted. Dizdarević states: "the Party huffed and puffed…we dozed off for a moment." The system came to a halt, and "… failed to democratise and turn into a modern state" (Tešan, 2007, p. 31). Failed leadership policies, elite manipulation, and the lack of professional politicians created the space for polar extremisms.
Eventually, in response to Milošević's nationalist rallies and speeches in the republics, the federal government attempted to reassign him to a bureaucratic post, but this came too late. Dizdarević summarizes: "They masked themselves as nationalists and used sweet words and fanned nationalism to gain the attention of confused masses" (Tešan, 2007, p. 38). The federal government and old leadership recognized the dangerous tactics of the extremist voices within the liminal void. Milošević specifically was identified as a problem. Notably, Dizdarević's language closely parallels that of scholars of liminality: "masked", "sweet words", "fanned nationalism", and "confused masses." Yet, Democratic wing in B&H (Borger, 2017;Danner, 1998). Danner claims Karadžić's ambitious character"could not help but make him attractive to a great political manipulator like Milošević" (Danner, 1998 authorities who prophesized existential fear as normalcy, proclaimed war identities, and justified violence. A pathological normal evolved which suffocated the nascent democratic spirit.

The Art of Transgression and Elite Perspectives: The B&H War Archive
Reflecting to pre-war B&H, the Sarajevo Spring of 1992 demonstrated that people aimed to break from authoritarian mentalities, but their free will and critical moment were transgressed. Thomassen frames comparable revolutions throughout Central Europe as rituals involving "imitation," "trickster" and "crowd behaviour" (2012, p. 684). So too, the Sarajevo Spring attempted to peacefully transform a hyper-rational communist system of thought. "Rational" humans seeking transition appeared almost "irrational" or "fanatical" (especially to the old elite) as people poured into Sarajevo with their democratic spirit challenging the false promises of monolithic government. The liminality, as an anti-structure, cried for a leader to serve as a virtuous leader, a master of ceremonies (Turner, 1974).
Yet most elites could not look beyond the rationalized bureaucracy or their legalistic legitimacy to see the emerging truth; they hid in the Parliament, and willingly "opted out" (Turner, 1974, p. 233 Filipović, tape 1/2ss).
Such a view dominated. The demos sought leadership, "masters of ceremony" to transition to peace, freedom and democracy. The representatives constructed a chasm, a void which became part of the critical moment or out-of-orderly situation, feeding from and detrimental to the social change, and its democratic spirit. The majority of the representatives in the Assembly created a false narrative of the Sarajevo Spring as subversive and dangerous; ignoring their citizens, they petitioned the international community to restore order. Mirko Prskalo argued: "What is our mandate? Where is our rule? I agree with Professor Filipović that the strongest weapon of our country now is its legality and the sovereignty received by the international society" (War Archive 1992: Prskalo, tape 6/1 AM). Accordingly, the grassroots of sovereignty in the people were rejected for the recognition of external bodies.
The representatives did not attempt to meet with the people; rather they hid inside the Parliament building, watching via closed circuit cameras the outside wave of peaceful marchers, which they labelled "fanatics". Admittedly, debate occurred and a few members of the Assembly disagreed with the dominant narratives, but they lacked the courage necessary to accept the call to lead and foster the unity of the emerging polity. MirsadDžapo criticized the Assembly's betrayal couched in hyper-rational constitutional discourse and old legislation. His comments identify the textbook liminality: "...Today we are in true extraordinary situation. We are located in the building where there is a continuum parade of all kinds of people in all directions. I'm not sure, but I am afraid that this kind of Parliament that we have at the moment in this extraordinary situation may throw-out the 'Saviour' for the nation. We have law, and the Saviour is the last thing this nation needs...." (War Archive 1992: Džapo, tape 4/4).
They feared a new saviour, perhaps a Platonic leader, which the demos might prefer to the legal authority of the elites. Representative Tokić summarizes the retreat from potential leadership: "...one of the reasons why the nation and these peoples are now in the parliament is that we were not here. The government has not been functioning, hence, had we been here yesterday and the day before my dear

Problematic Elites and the Problem of Leadership
Accordingly, irrational tricksters such as Šešelj, Izetbegović, Milošević and Karadžić, opted to dehumanize individuals and peoples, while encouraging discord and violence. These "liminal authorities" naturally turned against order and harmony, perpetuated chaos, and slammed the door on democracy (Horvath, 2013). Significant, given the reality of democracy's necessary wrestling if it is to hear all voices and engage dialogue and dissension, is these nationalist elites appeared because the withering communist system was unable to continue to suppress their ideas. The Yugoslav state previously denied Šešelj, Izetbegović and Tudjman opportunity to teach and speak; now they seized the stage. They fed on not only the declining system's failures, but also the myths from across the centuries which now seemed to hold credence.
Milosevicarguably is the most notable of the ultranationalists who affected not only B&H, but also the greater region. He retold ancient myths of Serbia's founding after defeat in Kosovo. He stirred popular sensitivities by recalling histories of Ottoman and Croat mistreatment of Serb populations. While some truth existed in these histories, Miloševićexaggerated the Serbian vulnerability and ignored the decades of peace that existed. Miloševićalso encouraged the military and para-militaries to engage in torture and ethnic cleansing against non-Serb populations. Not only were the Albanians, Bosnians and Croats identified as threats to the Serbs, but they were demonized for occupying Serbian living space (Milošević, 1999 Nevertheless, the language of the declaration appeared to equate religion, nation, and sovereign statehood, demanding a singular loyalty. As such it threatened Serbs in the region, or at least could be so argued, and consequently B&H unity.
In response, Šešelj, founded the far-right Serbian Radical Party, threatening the Muslims and pushing Milošević farther to extremes. Šešelj's platform, countered Izetbegović's declaration as a plan for a Muslim state in B&H, with a call for a Greater Serbia (Šešelj, 1999). Ultimately, he was found guilty of hate speech provoking extremists to commit war crimes against Croats. Yet, Marko Attila Hoare suggests Šešelj is a minor figure: "I hope Šešelj is sufficiently humiliated by the low sentence; it at least marks him down as a second-or third-ranking player, which he was. He was a loudmouthed attention-seeker who made himself infamous to the international public in the 1990s by his extreme statements, and certainly relished the publicity of being indicted and tried." (Gadžo, 2018).
Karadžić too used extreme language and advocated extreme tactics. He often publicly dismissed Europe's criticisms, telling them to "f--k themselves" (Karadžić, 2009, p. 533). In a November 1991 speech, he claimed the only solution was to separate institutions based on ethnicity and if necessary "fight to the finish for our survival, a battle for our living space" (Karadžić, 1996, p. 941). In a radio transcript he predicted, "There will be rivers of blood. Sarajevo will be a black cauldron where 300,000 Muslims will die. It will be a real bloodbath" (Karadžić, 2009, p. 532).
To be clear, these violence inspiring speeches and rallies were not the exception, but a daily tactic of the ultranationalists (Karadžić, 1996, p. 939;Milošević, 1999). Their use of emotional language and mythical appeals also were complemented with the tools of both traditional and modern leaders. They secured loyalty within their institutions and paramilitaries with daily meetings with individuals who enjoyed their political patronage. Šešelj and Karadžić regularly visited their troops (Šešelj, 2003, pp. 2-15;Milošević, 1999). Milošević's control of the press and television throughout the region enabled him to ignite and enflame fears. They also maintained tight control over bureaucratic organizations and budgets which served their nationalist causes (Milošević, 1999). As the war in B&H highlights, these nationalist leaders, to borrow from Franz Borkenau (1950,1971), seem to be intolerant of the historic impulse toward connection and community necessary to move beyond liminality. They adapted the pathological mindset of the communists and inspired the emergence of schismatic new identities.
These authorities who embraced virulent, exclusive nationalisms rather than guiding the nascent democratic communitas to a free identity bear the onus for the frozen conflict and transition. Their rhetoric and actions manipulated the ambiguity of time and place to scam people into focusing upon irrational, imaginary threats which then became real, cementing B&H into a violent schismogenesis via the technologies of the rational peace truce. Certainly, communism and its post-Tito legacy represented a liminality in which authorities manipulated mimetic behaviour to maintain control, but the grotesque violence was absent. After Tito's death, members of the collective leadership prioritised self-interest over societal interests. Ultranationalists and/or irrational politicians then claimed legitimacy and replaced one anthropocentric (communist) world-view with another anthropocentric world-view: the virulent "my nation" against "your state". They fed the popular democratic imagination nationalist strategies and structures which only mimicked democratisation. Indeed, the problem for B&H was not the inability to accommodate multiple nationalisms and religions within a single state, but rather the context of suppression of potential Platonic leaders with the intellectual, and above all moral, capacity and will to guide the multicultural society.
As the demos was silenced, so were Plato's leaders. Yet, as discussed, the Republic suggests democracy can re-emerge if the context of a spectrum of views, including extremes, exist and dialogue, with leadership oscillating but never to the poles. In other words, for Plato, it is the question "how" rather than the prescriptive "what" question related to heterogeneity (or if the case required, homogeneity).
For instance, throughout history in Yugoslavia, especially in B&H, the multiplicity of different world-views did not pose a major cosmological or identity problem. Diverse identities were welcomed.
In the 14 th century, when no nation-state in Europe wanted to accept Sephardi Jews escaping Spain, B&H opened its doors. Social relations, including the architecture and culture of the region became richer. Thus, in a democracy to be-the Republic-diversity is welcomed as it is simply understood as its "form" or essence should mirror the essence of the society: demos. The Republic famously concludes with philosopher kings. So too, Socrates warns tyranny proceeds from democracy. Thus, leadership must aspire to its ideal and form within the current heterogeneity and democracy of the former Yugoslavia. In the Republic, there is a space-a context and/or infrastructure-for everything and everyone (including prostitutes) provided proper education.
3.2 The Failure of Rationality, Technology, and the DPA without Leadership As discussed, the Cave metaphor highlights the problem of deception and therefore the necessity of real, if possible ideal, leaders. In the case of B&H, the context of heterogeneity prior to 1992 needs to be revisited so that society rejects and ousts tricksters, whilst the demos nurtures leaders with the virtues to guide a heterogenous democracy. Leaders must be virtuous. Applied to B&H, and in particular nationalist and extremist politicians, reason and experiential knowledge were used, or abused, to conclude and convey that existential threats existed to the nation. According to Kant, reason allows us to structure the world to be a better place, but the manipulation of reason by hyper rational "Princes" also can produce a nation's mostunfinest moments. In B&H, a fewelitistsappealed with irrational politics, leading people to bloody and irrational war.  (Davison & Tešan, 2011). Their political security allows them both to engage not only in corruption but also impede movements toward unity. Most politicians accept their success as linked to divisive and conflictual rhetoric and policies. The hyper rationalism associated with the DPA and its institutions-painfully structured to not exclude any group-overlooks the necessity of good leaders for a heterogenous society which seeks to transition. The DPA technology still requires humans, and lacking good leadership, is misdirected. In fairness, the European Union and its High Representatives to B&H came to understand the need for appropriate, good leaders. Though external institutions themselves, they have removed the most corrupt and criminal elites, prohibited destructive campaign practices, and pushed for constitutional change. They readily admit that change is necessary so that the B&H government (who are not ideal leaders) move closer to the "truth" (Tešan, 2017).
Plato in the Republic shows that painters and poets do not possess knowledge of objects or forms; they copy copies. Homer writes about war but, unlike the people of the former Yugoslavia, has never been through war. Plato says: those who know Do. Thus, Republic book 10 ends with an attack on Homer, artistry and poets. Yet, apart from merely enjoying aesthetic elements in art, tragedy and poetry, one can still learn through education. So too, apart from the legal technology of the DPA, potential leaders need to learn how certain things are actant, hence learning brings them closer to knowing, albeit they must choose to love wisdom.

Discussion: The Leadership for Heterogeneity and Democracy
Zoran Đinđić stands among politicians whose leadership sought to promote unity and dialogue in the   (Davison, 2013). Thus, Komšić's platform seems consistent with the contention that real leadership necessitates unifying diverse interests to pursue shared goals for common benefits.
His leadership also offers sharp contrast with that of the Bosnian Serb member of the Presidency Milorad Dodik, a Serbian nationalist, who often uses inflammatory rhetoric, initiating or supporting divisive policies. Like Karadžić, he claims that Srebrenica wasfake news or in his words "staged tragedy with an aim to Satanize the Serbs" (Voice of America 2018). In September 2019, Dodik praised the creation of a separate Republika Srpska Interior Ministry militarised police force for the protection of Bosnian Serb citizens and property (Smith 2019). Dodik also continues to contend that B&H is "an impossible state" and that the Republika Srpska's divergent interest is best served through autonomy or secession. Dodik illustrates a politician who opts to use the DPA to perpetuate liminality and block unity.
To conclude regarding Đinđić, Komšić, Dodik and other politicians, they exist on a spectrum from Platonic leader toirrational politicianto self-serving trickster. Real leaders do not merely advance individual and societal freedom, security, and opportunity; real leaders facilitate these outcomes while also unifying society. By contrast, tricksters claim to value security, but contend security and prosperity only can come at the cost of division. In extreme cases, the supposed security mandates division through tactics which include ethnic cleansing, walling, and secession. Šešelj, Izetbegović, Milošević and Karadžić made such claims. While Miloševićrepresents an archetype irrational politician/trickster whose access to material power enabled devastating results, Šešelj, Izetbegović, and Karadžić also fuelled the destruction of B&H. They responded to Milošević with supporting or contending narratives which rather than countering his divisive tactics, furthered the basis for popular beliefs in mythical notions of insecurity and enemies. Karadžić asserted that the Bosnian Serbs must "admit that the Muslims have been planted to us as a people whose executioners we are to be" (Karadžić, 2009, p. 532). The problem with such binary division, and certainly such violence, however, is that real security and freedom is then elusive because individuals and societies are locked into a debilitating schism.
Recalling Weber, irrational politicians and their politics actually open society to insecurity through the creation of enemies and perpetuation of violent "solutions". Currently citizens are trapped in a viral, divisive liminality which some elected officials and their institutions find convenient to perpetuate. In Weber's terminology, B&H elites are living off the politics rather than for the politics, and accordingly freezing liminality such that B&H exhibits many of the features of the iron cage of modernity. It seems evident from other post-transition experiences that a focus upon unity in both the difficult and prosperous times is the opening to individual and collective flourishing and freedom. Unfortunately, contemporary examples of leadership tend not to advance the Platonic model. Looking east, the people of the former Yugoslavia see Turkey and Russia; citizens who look west see the UK and US. B&H's own communities ultimately must provide the foundation from which leaders rise.