Polyparty-ism - Search for Common Ground

The time has come
to do something
Mirjana Najchevska
Flags, slogans and calls to violence sound very attractive,
and we can easily get carried away. Nevertheless,
these are anachronisms, characteristic of another time;
a time that is passing and that can neither bring us closer
to democracy nor replace it.
Finally, everyone has become
aware that interethnic relations in
Macedonia are not relaxed and that
they represent a source of conflict. The
bad side of this is that everyone is dissatisfied
(for different reasons but dissatisfied
nonetheless). The good side is
that we have a chance to face reality
and real problems (if we remove the
blinders tied on by political slogans,
demagogues, and rhetorical performances
by individuals from different
nationalities, sexes, educational levels,
parties, etc.). In such a situation it is
worth reminding ourselves what we
wanted "at the beginning" when
changes in the system seemed
inevitable and indisputable.
The model for governance and law
that Macedonia tried to abandon in
1991 was a one-party model in which
the party dominated the law. At least
that is what the so-called leaders of
change said. Over the developments of
the past ten years the one-party system
has been overcome. Very little has
been done, however, to surmount the
domination of political and party aims
at the expense of the development of
the state's legal framework. Not for an
instant has the law positioned itself to
challenge the parochial or group interests
of political and party leaders.
This deformation in the development
of newly formed state laws has
been fatally reflected in one of
Macedonian society's most sensitive
segments; that is, in interethnic relations.
Namely, establishing a lawful
state and defining the principles for the
rule of law and the domination of law
over politics represented one of the
guarantees for the existence of
Macedonia as a multiethnic, multicultural,
and multiconfessional state.
These principles promised the general
application of law instead of political
will, an individual rather than collective
approach, and gravitation toward a
civic rather than an ethnic foundation
for society.
To become a part of legal regulations
rather than party deal-making,
interethnic relations should have been
put on the agenda. Legislators then
should have identified all problems
interethnic relations could cause and
should have found suitable legislative
solutions.
The first mistake was made when
the framers of Macedonia's constitution
failed to identify interethnic relations
as a priority in operationalizing
the new framework of governance and
law. That failure transformed the constant
creation and solution of interethnic
conflicts into part of the political
game and the fight for power. This is
turn led to an unstable balance in
interethnic life that could be destroyed
at any time by any political factor trying
to gain political points and posi-
21
Liberation from war, April 2001