Abstract: This article is dedicated to the study of the process of proclaiming the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a result of the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The author of this article focuses not so much on the reasons for the collapse of Yugoslavia, but specifically on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina as one of the most interesting examples of a post-Yugoslav state. The author emphasizes the first multi-party elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1990, as well as the further work of the Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991. An important part of this article is the analysis of the secession of the Assembly of the Serbian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina and its independent work. The reasons for the separation of the Serbian people into a separate independent Assembly in the fall of 1991 are explored, as well as the proclamation of the Republic of Srpska itself in January 1992. The methodology of this article is based on a systematic and interdisciplinary approach, which contributed to solving the tasks set. The work employs historical, comparative, and historical-genetic methods, as well as an institutional method that allowed for the study of the roles of the National Assemblies of BiH and RS and to assess their functioning and effectiveness. The novelty of the research lies in the special approach to studying the work of political institutions in BiH, which significantly influenced the entire political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina at that time. The main conclusions of this research are the theses that Bosnia and Herzegovina, after the dissolution of Yugoslavia and lacking a dominant ethnic group, was doomed to internal conflicts due to the diverse interests and aspirations of the Muslim (Bosniak), Serbian, and Croatian communities. Analyzing the end of 1991 and, above all, the illegal work of the Assembly of BiH and its decision to declare independence against the will of Serbian deputies, it can be concluded that this was the first illegal step taken by the Muslim-Croatian coalition. Constitutional provisions were violated, yet even today these events are presented only as facts and are not publicly examined as the primary and initial cause of the formation of a separate Assembly of the Serbian people and the Republic of Srpska as a whole, as well as all subsequent events on the political scene of BiH.

Abstract: The article is devoted to the study of the influence of institutions of consociative democracy on the processes of pacification and democratization in post-conflict societies. The introductory part defines two approaches to the study of consociative democracy: the first, which recommends consociative democracy as a desirable democratic model for deeply divided societies, and the second, which considers consociation solely as a successful conflict management mechanism without democracy. This article also analyzes the possibility of implementing consociative democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a vivid example of a post-conflict state, where even 30 years after the civil war, disorder and fear of a re-outbreak of interethnic conflict prevail. In this paper, the author tried to explain the reasons that make it difficult to apply consociative democracy in the Balkans in general and in Bosnia and Herzegovina in particular. The research is based on the methodology of A. Leiphart, which is based on a comparative analysis of empirical studies of the experience of political development in a number of states. The methodology is based on a systematic approach, which allows us to consider the object of research as an integral set of elements, as well as a cultural approach that helps to understand the specifics of the interaction of various segments of society in the state chosen for analysis. The novelty of the research lies in a special approach to the study of consociative democracy, which focuses more on the successful establishment of peace in post-conflict societies, rather than on the establishment of democracy in these territories. The author uses the model of A. Leiphart, which assumes consociative democracy as a political model with segmental pluralism, which includes many grounds for dividing people into representatives of certain groups in multi-component societies. Such differences may be religious, linguistic, racial, ethnic, or regional in nature.
The main conclusions of this study are the theses that the main function of consociative institutions in post-conflict societies is to prevent the recurrence of violence, not to build democracy. Also, an analysis of the implementation of consociative democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina shows that the theoretical doctrines of consociation are not easy to apply in practice in the conflict societies of post-Yugoslav states.