This paper analyses the introduction and functioning of certain consociational elements in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Macedonia. These states share the common experience within the SFRY and they both emerged from its dissolution. The Dayton Peace Accords of 1995 and the Ohrid Agreement of 2001 terminated the conflict which had resulted from deep divisions within these societies. Bosnia and Herzegovina is composed of segments of Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats, accompanied with Muslim (Islamic), Orthodox and Catholic religions. In Macedonia the Macedonian and Albanian segments are dominant, accompanied with Orthodox and Muslim religions as well as with different languages. While BiH is institutionalized with a high level of decentralization of two entities, the Federation and the Republic of Srpska, with federal elements, the solutions offered in Macedonia remained within the framework of a unitary state. The horizontal division of power is characterized by a kind of proportional representation and power-sharing. The Dayton and Ohrid Agreements leftaside the guarantees for protection of smaller national communities. The choice of this model was rather under the external than under the internal influence. The solutions, initiated mostly from outside, led to termination of conflicts, however without producing functional states. The example of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia mostly confirms certain critiques addressed to the consociational model of democracy. Existence of actual economic problems, increase of unemployment and corruption cannot be directly put into connection with consociational arrangements. An impression is obtained that (constitutional) patriotism is rather reduced to one's own entity or ethnic group than related to the state as a whole. Prevention of conflicts has been obtained. Whether this is their freezing or regulation and to what extent the solutions are (self)sustainable, the time will show.