Polyparty-ism - Search for Common Ground

It is absurd to believe
that only ethnically homogenous
countries have a future
36
Mirjana Najchevska
The government of national
salvation was formed at the
moment when the society was
shaken by critical problems,
which penetrated into the basic
structure of the country. This
government is thus expected to
show awareness, knowledge,
power and devotion, to help us
preserve the basic structure and
to create the basic conditions for
a new life within society. This
government could, among other
things, try to set the foundation
for a real civil structure within
the country. This includes several
basic directions, which could
define future development.
The first aspect of this new
system is the identification of the
crucial role of pluralism.
Pluralism, especially the pluralism
of interests in its civil variant,
includes the formation and
existence of transient spheres
With a certain level of decentralization
within a country, its citizens
will find the means for their own
identification in the smaller structures
in which they live, and also
through the global community.
(structures and groups) whose
basic principle remains arbitrary.
People must have formal and
practical opportunities to associate
with each other according to
various interests and needs,
instead of being forced to belong
to certain fixed structures defined
at the moment of their birth.
Stable and impenetrable structures
are incompatible with the
essence of civil rights and freedom,
which are founded on having
the opportunity to choose.
Flexibility in defining social
spheres becomes the modus
vivendi of civil society and
spreads porously through the
community. The inclusion of all
citizens into this civil society
should be according to that which
is general and universal, and not
according to such special characteristics
as citizens' similarities
versus their differences. An
example of this can be seen in
laws and rules that are the same
for everyone and applied in the
same way (regardless of individual
and group differences). The
idea that a country cannot exist if
it is not homogenous is opposed
to the fundamental notion of
human rights, which have to be
defined and accepted in the terms
of multicultural, multiracial, and
multi-confessional elements, as
well as through elements of
multi-identity within the conceptual
borders of a country.
This can direct us to a second
possible action, which is the
application of the liberal concept
of the country's neutrality.
Liberal neutrality represents one
of the ways for solving conflicts
caused by relatively constant
social, religious, ethnic and other
differences. Such a country aims
to erase differences between people
in public, and to make all
members of a certain community
equal as far as their political
capacity is concerned, despite the
fact that those individuals have
different aspects of development
and identification. That means
that, within the public sphere,
everyone participates according
to his abilities, and is treated as a
citizen like everybody else.
Contradictory opinions are
reconciled by treating the differences
between people, ways in
which they are not equal, and of
their individual or collectively
manifested features, as irrelevant,
in accordance with the liberal tradition.
These differences are
totally displaced to an "expanded"
private sphere of a life. Any
negative influence on a person's
accomplishments, which make
him both an individual and a
member of a wider community,
are prevented.
In order to achieve this, we
must formulate juridical norms
which will make it possible for
individuals to seek out their own
solutions (individual or within
smaller groups), or in other
words, to act alternatively without
exceeding these norms. This
is possible only if we start with
the assumption that all actions of
legal subjects are not equally
important from a general point of
view (if the whole country or
society are taken into consideration).
Namely, there are many
interests which have no importance
whatsoever for the social
(meaning state) system.
As a special issue for discussion,
doctrinal democracy can be
mentioned, according to which,
the majority is in favour of something,
therefore deeming it good
or just. That kind of democratic
What now, June 2001