Politiche di sviluppo e questione etnica. La cooperazione italiana IN Bosnia Erzegovina

The globalization process of the last twenty years has changed the world through international flows of people, policies and practices. International cooperation to development is a part of that process and brought International Organizations (IOs) and Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) from the West to the rest of the world. In my thesis I analyze the Italian NGOs that worked in Bosnia Herzegovina (BH) to understand which development projects they realized and how they faced the ethnic issue that characterized BH. I consider the relation shaped between Italian NGOs and Bosnian civil society as an object of ethnic interests. In BH, once part of former Yugoslavia, the transition from the communist regime to a democratic country has not been completed. BH’s social conditions are characterized by strong ethnic divisions. The legacy of the early 1990s crisis was a phenomenon of ethnic identities created before the war and that still endure today. The Dayton Peace Agreement signed in 1995 granted the peace and reinforced the inter-ethnic hate between the newly recognized three principal ethnicities: Serbs, Croats and Bosniak. Through the new constitution, the institutions were characterized by division at every level, from the top to the bottom of society. Besides it was the first constitution ever written and signed outside the own country; that was the root of the state of exception that characterized BH. Thus ethnic identities culture survived through the international political involvement. At the same time ethnic groups that dominated the political debate clashed with the international organization’s democratic purpose to build a multicultural and democratic state. Ethnic and also religious differences were the instruments for a national statement that might cause the transition and development projects failure. Fifteen years later social fragmentation was still present and it established an atmosphere of daily cultural violence. Civil society suffered this condition and attended to recreate the ethnic fragmentation in every day life. Some cities became physically divided and other cities don’t tolerated the minority presence. In rural areas, the division was more explicit, from village to village, without integration. In my speech, the anthropology for development – the derivative study from applied anthropology – constitutes the point of view that I used to understand how ethnic identities still influenced the development process in BH. I done ethnographic research about the Italian cooperation for development projects that were working there in 2007. The target of research were the Italian NGOs that created a relation with Bosnian civil society; they were almost twenty divided in four main field of competences: institutional building, education, agriculture and democratization. I assumed that NGOs work needed a deep study because the bottom of society is the place where people could really change their representation and behavior. Italian NGOs operated in BH with the aim of creating sustainable development. They found cultural barricade that both institutions and civil society erected when development projects have been applied. Ethnic and religious differences were stressed to maintain boundaries and fragmented power. Thus NGOs tried to negotiate development projects by social integration. I found that NGOs worked among ethnic groups by pursuing a new integration. They often gained success among people; civil society was ready to accept development projects and overcome differences. On the other hand NGOs have been limited by political level that sustained the ethnic talk and by their representation of Bosnian issue. Thus development policies have been impeded by ethnic issue and by cooperation practices established on a top down perspective. Paradoxically, since international community has approved the political ethnic division within DPA, then the willing of development followed by funding NGOs cooperation projects was not completely successful.

Il Pluralismo tra Democrazia ed Autoritarismo: Il Caso Russo

The research explores the mechanisms in the formation and consolidation of a new regime which combines democratic and authoritarian features; it has emerged as result of democratization processes affecting different world areas in recent years. The study analyses a case of great international significance, post-communist Russia: here internal factors strongly prevail in front of the external variables of democratic imitation and contagion, thus showing to what extent Russia differs from other political contexts. The study intends to examine the strategies used by this regime to solve internal conflicts and become stable in spite of the democratizing pressures coming from outside. Indeed, the literature about political transformations has shown the problems in analyzing these polities together with the need to examine their peculiarities more in depth. In this perspective, the first section focuses on the dynamics of State-building in Russia as a fundamental process in tracing the specific characteristics of the current regime: particularly, it is suggested that the State dimension comes out as crucial in determining the level of political and social pluralism accepted in post-Soviet Russia. This argument is worked out in the second section, which analyses the main mechanisms used by the incumbents to limit and control pluralism within the two arenas of political competition and civil society, from where the major threats to the status quo are supposed to come. The main hypothesis is that the leadership interventions in these spheres during the last ten years have shaped a regime which can be characterized as a new type of authoritarianism: with respect to traditional authoritarian forms a certain degree of political contestation is accepted, visible in the presence of a multiparty system, semi-competitive elections and of the several representatives of civil society. Yet, this diversity is curbed basically in two different ways: from one hand the incumbents provide support to political and social actors who sponsor government politics (see the party of power and pro-Kremlin movements). From the other they use some non coercive forms of control and restriction (in legislation, in political elections) against those actors who promote values and priorities opposed to the official ones.