The purpose of this essay was to study the impact the Dayton Accords has had on the political society and the judicial society in Bosnia and Herzegovina today. In order to do so, the following questions were asked in the essay:“What does the political society look like in Bosnia and Herzegovina?”,“What does the judicial society look like in Bosnia and Herzegovina?” and ”What type of relation is there between the political and judicial society?”. By using consolidation theory and applying qualitative textual analysis it was conducted that Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a consolidated democracy yet. The country is a transitional or hybrid regimecharacterized by a political society that: partially meets the criteria required in the organization and issuance of political elections, it does not meet the criteria for an autonomous political society, it has a wide range of political parties, and alliances between parties are common, it has election rules that benefits the three largest ethnic groups, and lastly legislators have a partly independent role as long as new legislation does not contribute to any form of sabotage of the Dayton Accords. The country has a judicial society that is: complex and inefficient when it comes to the legal system, it has striking shortcomings in the judiciary and the rule of law, there has been only marginal progress in legislation, and the Dayton agreement has not promoted stability in the country but has instead enabled segregation and discrimination. To conclude, the relation between the political and judicial society is fragile. A reform of the Dayton Agreement, in which the agenda is greater civic inclusion, would enable Bosnia and Herzegovina to move towards a more consolidated democracy.