Polyparty-ism - Search for Common Ground

22
tion. Radical extremism, accompanied
by the means and tactics of terrorism, is
only a by-product of such a situation.
Its appearance can be connected to a
complex external situation that
includes:
- the existence of armed formations
that lost their basic modus vivendi in
the vicinity;
- the undefined position of Kosovo
and its status of governance and legal
framework; and
- long-held feelings of insecurity
and menace coming from state institutions.
A generally healthy society can
deal relatively easily with such forms
of non-democracy. Or at least it can
easily identify them as dangerous deviations
from global democratic aspirations.
Our problem is that we have an
unhealthy society due to the constant
avoidance of defining those limits and
parameters that would make it possible
to treat interethnic relations within the
means of a legal state.
The second insufficiency we can
identify is the lack of an efficient,
accessible, and just legal system that
might deal with this matter. This
includes defining an overall concept
and strategy (which should be present
in the Constitution), comprehensive
national legislation, and the creation of
real and relevant implementing mechanisms
(consequent acts, rules, and procedures)
to enact these legal decisions.
Instead, an ad hoc solution was offered;
the leadership acted under crisis and
under pressure, and constantly attempted
to patch things together (although
some people want to present what happened
as modelling and adapting).
The third problem is limited institutional
scope. A state must, in structure
and in deed, provide absolute objectivity
in treating its citizens as equal. That
means that a state must be structured in
a way that will make it possible for the
common will and all specific citizens'
needs and interests to be formulated
and reported to all levels of the government
(especially at lower administrative
levels). If 35 per cent of the population
of a state belongs to ethnic
minorities, the idea of a multiethnic
society must be manifested in every
segment of that state.
Within the context of the above
remarks, consistent legal regulation of
interethnic relations represents the
fourth doubtful aspect of how this matter
has been treated. Aspecial problem is
the variability of regulations (in terms
both of contents and terminology).
Legal solutions must become a part of
the general strategic implementation,
instead of party agreements (which
leaves them open to constant manipulation).
The principle of multiculturalism is
completely missing from all previous
activities and solutions concerning
interethnic relations. This is a complex
principle that includes the existence of
and respect for differences, active tolerance
and creating conditions for identifying
and manifesting common needs
and interests. As such it is entirely
absent at all levels of civic education.
Most of what has been achieved (culminating
in Mr. Van der Stoehl's idea of
a private university), leads towards parallelism
and social disintegration rather
than toward a civic model.
The possibilities that local autonomy
offers still have not been exhausted.
The excessive concentration of power
in the central structures of state was
another mechanism for political party
action that only dealt minimally, if at
all, with citizens' everyday needs and
interests. Regional political and administrative
decentralization is one democratic
measure that could be used to
solve interethnic conflicts and to mitigate
interethnic tension.
To the question, "Are we are in crisis?"
my answer is yes.
To the question, "How did we find
ourselves in this crisis?" my answer is:
This crisis results from an inconsistent
transformation of the one-party state
into a legal one. This inconsistency is
due to a lack of awareness and the lack
of desire for real social democratization,
and due to the deformation of the
civic perspective into an ethnically
defined one.
To the question, "How do we get
out of this crisis?" my answers are:
1. Systematically create a consistent
legal structure;
2. Lend legitimacy to laws through
which the general will shall be grounded,
and which shall be formulated
according to general agreement;
3. Obey democratic procedures and
using democratic mechanisms to reach
desired aims;
4. Gradually promote civic identity
in all areas of public life, but with
enough room for ethnic identity.
Democracy is slow and it often
seems inefficient in solving sensitive
questions concerning interethnic
behaviour, especially in conflict situations
arising from relations between
different ethnic groups. Democracy
never offers instant solutions to satisfy
all participants in the democratic
process. Also, democracy does not
release any subject in the society from
responsibility for what is happening.
However, on this level of development,
only democracy can enable the creation
of a stable structure in which individual
needs and interests can be situated
and solved (in the domain of individual
ethnic identity and belonging).
We can try to justify our positions
by calling on fear, mistrust, insults and
thousands of other emotions. We can
recall positive and negative examples
from more or less recent history.
However, what remains is the fact that
we have not even tried to use the means
offered by legal mechanisms of the
state for solving interethnic relations
and avoiding an insoluble conflict.
Flags, slogans and calls to violence
sound very attractive, and we can easily
get carried away. Nevertheless, these
are anachronisms, characteristics of
another time; a time that is passing and
that can neither bring us closer to
democracy nor replace it.
(The author is a senior associate
at the Institute for
Sociological, Political, and
Juridical Research, Skopje)
Liberation from war, April 2001