This article analyzes the constitutional architecture established by the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement and argues that Bosnia and Herzegovina's current crisis, marked by secessionist rhetoric, defiance of state institutions, and stalled EU accession, is the predictable outcome of a constitutional order designed to end a war, not to sustain durable democratic governance. Drawing on one author's firsthand participation in the Bosnian delegation and subsequent decades of peace-process experience, it traces how the extraordinary wartime pressures of the negotiations subordinated constitutional design to military enforcement, producing a framework of territorial decentralization, ethnic power-sharing, and veto mechanisms borrowed from an inherently undemocratic Yugoslav template. The article concludes by proposing pathways for reform, including curbing veto-based obstruction, aligning change with EU accession and civic rights, and shifting from international supervision toward legitimate domestic governance.