‘All post-conflict areas are a playground for donors.’

At this year’s KoneKtor – Philanthropy East Forum (2024), Alliance magazine editor, Elaine Stabler, sat down with Nedim Krajišnik, director of Step by Step, an NGO dedicated to child-centred education in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Reflecting on a post-conflict landscape marred by deep-seated divisions and unresolved issues, Krajišnik offers incisive critique on the complexities of post-conflict reconstruction, a valuable perspective the challenges of effective philanthropy, and an urgent appeal to Open Society Foundation in the wake of their European cuts.

Nedim Krajišnik, image credit: Mixer

ELAINE STABLER: Tell me about the work of Step by Step.

NEDIM KRAJIŠNIK: Our core mission centres on imagining a different Bosnia-Herzegovina. It’s a mission generated through the values of competent teachers who are capable, not just to create platforms where children are nourished, but where children can become better human beings, better than us adults, especially in a post-conflict region.

Absence of violent conflict does not mean there is no conflict there. There’s no physical violence, but conflict exists in every other way. Step by Step is a small utopian island for teachers around Bosnia-Herzegovina, regardless of their background. Those teachers understand that education is the only emancipatory and liberating platform for children of Bosnia. They understand that Bosnia is a periphery, that in periphery you have different peripheries, and there are many children in Bosnia who are stuck on these political, cultural peripheries.

We believe in teachers, and we believe in individual transformation. But it has to come from Bosnia, we cannot import it. Children do not have another childhood. They have one single opportunity for happiness and curiosity. As the responsible adults, it’s our responsibility to fix what we broke, and we broke everything: structural, horizontal, vertical connections in Bosnia-Herzegovina. So that’s what Step by Step does every day.

ES: Tell me about Step by Step’s work with teachers.

NK: The reality is this: 50 percent of children in Bosnia are functionally illiterate according to comparative research. We are dealing with substantial issues in education and illiteracy. But that illiteracy is not just the problem of children, it’s the problem of adults. To fix it, that means heavy teacher training and heavy intervention.

When you have a teacher who is a high performer, you can guarantee they are influencing the success and well-being of the children in their classroom. In spite of whatever socio-economical background the children are coming from, or whether their parents are educated, a high-performing teacher can surpass all of these background influences. So, we are investing in teachers through mentorship and peer review programs. It’s about creating professional learning communities where they can grow with other professionals. We also offer teacher awards and programs for reconciliation. We believe when there is quality of education, the consequence is children who can think, and question, and so on.

ES: How is philanthropy helping young Bosnians? Has the industry left young Bosnians feeling disenfranchised?

NK: The concept of philanthropy is something completely new to the Bosnia-Herzegovinian society. That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t there, we just didn’t call it philanthropy.

Philanthropy in the Bosnian way resembles a form of marketing where companies or private donors are giving money, and they want to give as much visibility as possible to that effort. It’s not due to a genuine or authentic will to help someone flourish or grow, or for an important societal initiative, it’s about marketing.

To the millions of people who, from their warm homes with safe families think, ‘we will not be happy until they are destroyed’, I am calling on you with your privileges and comfort to consider all the millions of others.

That does not mean that some philanthropists or private donors in and around Bosnia-Herzegovina do not support initiatives for young people in need. Those people have something tremendously strong and good within themselves, especially taking into consideration that we had this horrific war which destroyed connections, hopes, and pathways for some young people.

There are a few donors, such as Robert Bosch, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Balkan Trust for Democracy, who are questioning why there is little investment in young people’s education, higher education, or peacebuilding activities, but they are still a minority.  Then, there are other important donors in Bosnia who, after the war, helped thousands of people in all categories of society grow into the best versions of themselves. Now it is time to rethink donor appearance and modus operandi, not just in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but globally.

Of course, there are many problems. There’s a donor agenda (sometimes it’s the agenda of developmental agencies who are the biggest donors in Bosnia). And there are disparities of what is needed and what’s actually funded. It’s often the case that donors support what they think it is good, but in reality, it could be completely wrong.

ES: I want to talk about the war and those ‘many problems’. Previously you’ve called philanthropic peacebuilding efforts in Bosnia an ‘ineffectual industry’, is that still the case today? What needs to change?

NK: Unfortunately, that is both a provocative and true statement. All post-conflict areas are a playground for donors. They implement their programs, fund activities without any serious background theory of change or coordination between other institutions and donors. They often come from a patronising position, and it’s not just in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Perhaps these donors have the best intentions, but the implementation of what they envisioned for change is not happening. I would love to be wrong about that.

Making positive steps towards peace in a country needs a lot of pre-requirements. Maybe the first, most important step is a genuine understanding of the reality people are living in. What are their fears? What did they think about the conflict? How do they think they could build positive peace in their countries? In post-conflict times, you have people who are devastated on different levels. Some of them do not have the capacity to articulate what is important for them.

Obviously, we are not capable of learning from our own mistakes in history. It’s a myth that history is a teacher of life.

Take, for example, the Second World War and reconciliation. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, we have no idea who won the war. We don’t have a consensus about the type of war it was. Was it a civil war? For all these crucial questions don’t have an answer. And we don’t have an answer for people who are responsible for the most uncivilised crimes – they are still free. The substantial issues are unsolved.

The second step is understanding and working towards coexistence. Today, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, we have a generation who went through different good or bad programs of reconciliation, but who are now in a reality where everything is the same as it was during the 1990s. Most of these reconciliation programs were delivered by international organisations or mechanisms such us the UN. Real impact analysis was never done. And today, there are neighbouring communities made up of people who still call for division, still call for the war. So philanthropic peacebuilding doesn’t work. If you want to help people change, if you build some kind of infrastructure, it must be set up in an environment where it can flourish and not die immediately. Take Ukraine and Russia, as another example. Those countries will not disappear. Later on, we have to live with each other. In my opinion, I think it is more challenging to build peace after war than to stop it in the first place.

We need to support peace building, but we need to think about what we support, whom we support, and if there are better ways to support. I will never be part of this paradigm of militarising or these maturistic solutions of ‘let’s kill them all then we will be good in peace forever.’ It doesn’t work like that.

There is much more energy needed in building this humanistic approach. For some, that sounds like a provocation. It’s not. It’s only my understanding from experience of what can go wrong in post-conflict countries like Bosnia. I pray to whatever/whoever I need to pray for Ukraine, Palestine, and any other place in the world.

ES: Specifically in reference to the Israel/Palestine conflict, can philanthropy learn any lessons from Bosnia’s past?

NK: The whole global international community with its institutions failed, not just philanthropists. Obviously, we are not capable of learning from our own mistakes in the history. It’s a myth that history is a teacher of life. If that were true, nothing would happen.

Even before the war in Bosnia, we had severe conflicts and genocide, globally. Now we have this global deal called the ‘United Nations’, but it is not focused on Ukraine and Russia, not focused on Palestine…

ES: Do you mean to suggest that the role of philanthropy when it comes to navigating conflicts is to put pressure on governments or multilaterals? 

NK: The theory of building positive peace means all of it at the same time. So, if they are influential philanthropic platforms, individuals, organisations, why don’t they put the pressure on them? In the meantime, they can and should continue doing what they’re doing, supporting people, supporting artists, supporting civil society organisations.

Peace can exist in culture: language, arts, science, ideology, all of it can be used to create a culture of peace, not just culture of violence. And if you support those elements, you are on the right way. But you must use your privileges, social capital, and so on, to advocate for it on a high level, too.

ES: What do you believe is the role of civil society now while conflict in Ukraine is still ongoing?

NK: First, I want to make clear that for some people in Ukraine and people in Europe with relatives or friends in Ukraine, this is acute. I understand that people are tired, angry, and full of hate. They want Russia to disappear. I genuinely understand, but we should use our privilege to think about the situation differently.

In the case of Armenia and Azerbaijan, for perhaps the first time in our modern history we have a president (Armenian President Pashinyan) who gave up territory to save lives. He was accused of betrayal by protestors, but in my utopian world, men like that should be the heroes of today. Those are ‘macho males’ who decided not to lose any other men in conflict.

When you ask people of Bosnia who lost their family members, would they do the same, many of them would say there’s nothing worth it compared to human lives. That should be the starting position of civil society. Not hyping from our privileged positions saying: ‘let’s support Ukraine, let them destroy Russia.’ In that war, real people, if you can imagine that, are dying. Real people who have to go there and fight. We should put all of our efforts and energy into stopping that from happening.

To the millions of people who, from their warm homes with safe families think, ‘we will not be happy until they are destroyed’, I am calling on you with your privileges and comfort to consider all the millions of others.

The role of civil societies today should be to give a voice to the voiceless, and to give another voice always for immediate peace. We should not rationalise it, we should not argue for more weapons in Ukraine, or Ukraine to have a better position. This is not a game. War is never a game. Maybe for some who never experienced it, but it’s not a game. It’s a freaking platform where you lose capacity to build better society. This conflict, even if it stops today, will last for centuries. And civil society organisations not working in Ukraine should be aware of the privilege to speak about peace.

ES: Do you have any thoughts or comments on the recently announced Open Society cuts in Europe?

NK: For Step by Step and things we have done in Bosnia, they’re due to Open Society, they were financed with it. Open Society were one of the major players in Bosnia who supported good people, good organisations, and good initiatives. They alone were brave enough, open enough, flexible enough, to do so in the years after the war. They were the one of the organisations that we should learn from, for example, on what to do in post-conflict eras. They did a great job.

I’m not angry at the end, but I think it’s stupid. They created the platform and the people, which others cannot do because they have been the lone investors for 30 years. For some of the most important initiatives, it’s more about momentum than immediate support in the years after the war, because it’s not getting better. But now we are alone.

I don’t believe that some of the things we do—and I’m not alone in this belief—can be sustainable. There is no sustainability in the fight for peace. There’s no sustainability in improving education. Forget about it.

I’m pretty sure that the absence of Open Society when it’s more needed than ever, will be felt heavily by the people, not just in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but in the wider region. If someone from Open Society is reading this, I ask you to reconsider the consequences of leaving people and leaving platforms where you’re so much in need.

Elaine Stabler is the magazine editor at Alliance magazine.