At a time when questions of identity are increasingly used as tools of political manipulation, the new episode of Civic Angle, a program by the Centre for Civic Education (CCE) aired on TV E, opens an important debate: can culture and identity serve as a bridge rather than a wall between people in the Western Balkans? Zvezdana Kovač, Director of Strategy and Communications at the CCE, discussed this with Sašo Ordanoski, political analyst from Skopje; Dževdet Tuzlić, journalist from Sarajevo; Andro Martinović, film director and Jasna Tatar Anđelić, professor of French language and literature from Montenegro.
When asked whether cultural differences among peoples in the region are deliberately misused and for what purposes, Sašo Ordanoski emphasized that culture is neither inherently positive nor negative – it depends on context. “Culture is a conglomerate of values, traditions, and history that shapes a community’s identity, but in itself, it is not better or worse than any other”, he explained. He added that culture is often used as a tool in political battlesand expressed concern over the resurgence of nationalist narratives, not just in the region, but globally. “I am not optimistic. We’re returning to old models that use identity to divide”, he stated.
“Identity begins with the individual, but in the political discourse of the Balkans, it is almost exclusively used as a collective label. That’s abuse. Identity isn’t just what’s written in our ID cards – it’s also what defines us intimately. Unfortunately, the system constantly pushes us toward external layers – nation, religion, group – instead of focusing on the individual”, said Jasna Tatar Anđelić. She illustrated this with the current position of Montenegrins in Montenegro, noting it as just one manifestation of a broader regional issue.
“There is a serious regression in what should be a process of clarifying and recognizing identity, whether it relates to national, religious, or simply spiritual belonging”, said Dževdet Tuzlić, reflecting on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He reminded that people in BiH were once recognized for a unique spiritual dimension – regardless of religion or ethnicity – and were often referred to simply as “Bosnians”, a term connoting spontaneity, spirit, empathy, and openness. “Today, more and more people question whether it was a mistake not to define themselves clearly along collective lines. Many still refuse to do so. I’m one of them”, Tuzlić said.
Speaking about Montenegro, Andro Martinović pointed out that identity is built and defended primarily through culture. “Identity should not be reduced to a single dimension, because each person carries multiple identities. Ideology tries to narrow us down, to make us uniform, but culture teaches us to be unique without distancing ourselves from each other”, Martinović noted. He added that culture’s role is to develop individuality while also recognizing shared values that unite us as a collective.
Ana Martinoli cited specific cultural initiatives that have successfully connected different identities, such as the 2017 Declaration on the Common Language, the Sarajevo Film Festival (SFF), Skopje Jazz Festival, and the Krokodil literary festival, all of which promote shared heritage. She also referred to findings from the European Cultural Foundation, which show that 70% of Western Balkan citizens have a positive view of such events, while 65% of visitors said that participating helped them reconsider previous stereotypes. “Culture has the potential to connect, but political elites often use it to divide. In Serbia, for instance, 65% of respondents believe in the superiority of Serbian culture, which fosters exclusivity”, Martinoli warned. She highlighted recent student protests and collaborations between students from Novi Pazar and Belgrade as a symbolic act bringing new hope. “Students in Serbia are increasingly questioning official narratives and expressing a desire to connect with peers across the region. This might signal a generational shift free from the burden of the past”, she said.
Ordanoski, however, expressed pessimism about the effectiveness of the NGO sector in reconciliation processes. “I’ve spent 40 years on such projects – they’re useful, but marginal without systemic state support. Culture is a social product, and the state plays a key role in its development”, he explained. In this context, he referenced post-war reconciliation between France and Germany, where governments initiated mass citizen exchanges and education reforms. He emphasized that the former Yugoslav states lack such institutional support and political will. “Our states are not functional – you can’t be a patriot when you have nothing to be proud of. That’s why many people drift toward nationalism – it’s an easy terrain for manipulation”, he concluded.
Tuzlić confirmed the importance of culture in reconciliation processes. “When Sarajevo’s theater first performed in Belgrade in 1998, it was perceived in Sarajevo as a sign of a better future”, he said. At the same time, he warned of the dramatic decline in young people’s interest in regional culture and history. “Today’s youth don’t know who the Presidency members are, nor who Dositej Obradović, Goce Delčev, Njegoš, or Meša Selimović were”, he said, adding that cultural institutions in the region have been systematically neglected. He questioned how to create a society relevant to all generations – both older individuals with life experience and younger ones who must take responsibility. “Culture must be the foundation upon which we build unity – especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where culture and identity are particularly sensitive topics”, Tuzlić emphasized.
Martinović described a conceptual framework centered around the former shared state of Yugoslavia. “It’s no coincidence that we keep returning to that paradigm. It was a phase of emancipation for these nations. I’m not speaking about the political structure, but about the format that allowed for expression and testing of ideas. This return is not just nostalgia,” he said. In his view, the collapse of that country also brought down a value system, leading him to question what individuals shaped during that period can offer today. He also commented on the situation in Montenegro. “There’s a promotion of a traditional Montenegro that is poorly understood. People invoke figures they know little about – many of whom were, in fact, very modern and progressive for their time. If they weren’t, this country wouldn’t have had the first state printing press or looked outward for survival”, Martinović stressed.
Tatar Anđelić stated that we are currently in a „phase of regression into nationalistic, political-clerical trenches, which is greatly harming Montenegro. Montenegro can survive only as a shared culture – Montenegrin culture built over centuries by Orthodox Christians, Catholics, and Muslims.” she said. Speaking of the need for openness, critical thinking, and self-reflection, she called for changes in the education system to support such values. “It has to start in preschool – waiting until high school is too late”, she concluded.
Ordanoski asserted that this conversation has been ongoing for 70 years and that there are four strategies multicultural societies use to address such issues: assimilation, separation, segregation, and integration – the hardest, yet most important. “Macedonia developed that model after the 2001 conflict. It’s an integrative, multiethnic model – expensive, complex, and legally demanding. For that, you need a mature democracy. And even in the Netherlands or Sweden it doesn’t work perfectly, let alone in France or Britain. It is a matter of political will and investment. How much money will you invest to make an education system where Macedonians and Albanians learn each other’s languages, or where Montenegrin children learn about all cultures within the country?”, Ordanoski asked, emphasizing that in any democratic country, the main question is how money is spent.
Tuzlić added that we are increasingly moving away from integrative processes and suggested a fifth element –particularism, alongside the four previously mentioned.
Speaking about investment in culture and the 2.5% of Montenegro’s total budget allocated to it, Martinović clarified that this is only on paper. “It is an objective set by Europe since there are no directives in culture, only recommendations. In practice, this has never been implemented here, and we are subject to various manipulations. They deduct the capital budget, leave something for the next year through support lines and calls, and so on. This game, where politicians think they’re outsmarting us, ultimately backfires on them”, Martinović concluded.
The full episode is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2VUCk31X2s
The episode was produced as part of the CCE’s project “Europeanization through the Civic Angle,” supported by the regional program SMART Balkans – Civil Society for a Connected Western Balkans, implemented by the Centre for Civil Society Promotion (CPCD), the Centre for Research and Policy Making (CRPM), and the Institute for Democracy and Mediation (IDM), and financially supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Norway. The content of the episode is the sole responsibility of the CCE and the speakers and does not necessarily reflect the views of CPCD, CRPM, IDM, or the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Maja Marinović, Programme Associate