Dublin-based sociologist Malesevic says weakening state institutions leads to long-term instability

Speaking to N1 in the programme Izvan okvira, Malesevis argued that nationalism cannot be fully eliminated in contemporary societies, even in the most developed democracies.

“Multi-ethnic societies everywhere, regardless of how developed they are, like Belgium or Canada, have a nationalism problem that has never been fully resolved,” Malesevic said.

‘Institutions become ethnicised’

Malesevic explained that even where legal protections exist for different ethnic, linguistic or religious communities, tensions often remain because identity politics is deeply reflected in the institutional structure of the state.

“Belgium, for example, has tried various ways to make the state more coherent. Everyone has rights, ethnic, linguistic, religious, but tensions are always there precisely because institutions become ethnicised, which makes it difficult to balance things and build a coherent community,” he said.

He warned that solutions are frequently sought in the wrong direction: either through pressure for unitarism and assimilation, or by weakening common institutions, both of which create long-term instability.

“Both unitarism and assimilation are a problem because then you have no rights. But on the other hand, if the state does not have strong institutions, it becomes difficult to establish functionality,” Malesevic said.

‘All states generate nationalism’

Looking more broadly at the modern world, Malesevic said nationalism is continuously reproduced through state mechanisms and daily practices, whether it is framed as “ethnic” or “civic”.

“Nationalism is always present and even today we cannot avoid it, whether ethnic or civic. All states are ‘nationalistic’ and generate nationalism through their institutions,” he said.

For divided societies, he argued, the key question is how to achieve an institutional balance, allowing differences to exist and be recognised, but within a shared framework.

“In divided societies, the crucial thing is to achieve a balance of institutions, to have institutions that allow different ethnic, religious and linguistic differences, but within the same institutions. And that is where we see a major problem in Bosnia and Herzegovina,” Malesevic said.

Bosnia and Herzegovina: ‘A conglomerate of huge contradictions’

Malesevic noted that Bosnia and Herzegovina faces an additional complexity due to the continued presence of international oversight, creating contradictory expectations about sovereignty.

“There is a strong element of a protectorate, the state does not have all the powers of an independent state. Paradoxically, representatives often want to preserve those more or less ‘colonial’ elements, while at the same time demanding full autonomy and sovereignty in other areas,” he said.

As a result, he described Bosnia and Herzegovina as a country where political and institutional tensions remain concentrated at the elite level, while everyday life often shows a different reality.

“In Bosnia and Herzegovina we have a conglomerate of huge contradictions. But this mainly takes place at the level of political elites, while at the level of everyday life people often function quite normally,” Malesevic said.

However, he stressed that a key long-term issue is the impact of post-war segregation, with communities far less mixed than they were before the 1990s conflict.

“After the war, people are no longer mixed. Before the war, they were mixed and it wasn’t a problem, they lived together, cooperated, married. Today, they mostly live in ethnically homogeneous environments, which is a problem. New generations are growing up in a completely different world compared to pre-war generations,” he added.

Nationalism as the ‘most successful ideology’

Malešević also linked nationalism to the wider functioning of ideology, arguing that the most powerful ideologies are those perceived as natural and unquestionable.

“All ideologies try to normalise and naturalise their ideas and principles. They are most successful when they are experienced as something normal, unquestionable, unnoticeable — something we simply reproduce,” he said.

In that sense, he described nationalism as one of the most successful ideological frameworks of the modern era.

“Nationalism is, in that sense, perhaps the most successful ideology,” Malešević said.

He compared it to patriarchy, which dominated societies for centuries while being treated as a “normal order”, until people began to recognise its inequality.

“Centuries ago patriarchy functioned the same way. We didn’t even think it was a problem if women didn’t work or had fewer rights. Today we recognise it as a problem,” he said.

‘You cannot exit nationalism – but you can change it’

Malešević concluded that leaving nationalism behind is unrealistic, but transforming it into a more inclusive model remains possible.

“In this context, it’s impossible to escape nationalism. But what can be done is to try to make nationalism much more civic and much less ethnic — more inclusive and focused on the egalitarian dimension it once had,” he said.