Polyparty-ism - Search for Common Ground

fetishism can lead us to a false
impression that "the government cannot
be self-willed as long as it is
elected by a democratic process."
History teaches us that wide national
sovereignty cannot guarantee human
rights. It is a big illusion of democracy,
but also of liberalism, to believe
that human rights and the protection
of minorities can be safely left to the
good intentions of the majority (or
any group or organization in the society).
Other kinds of democratic institutions
and liberal principles must be
found to protect these rights. These
could include special constitutional
decrees and new divisions of power
that will respect differences, among
which a special place belongs to
political and institutional pluralism.
This could be especially enhanced if
they are "enriched" with a pluralism
of interests, values and identity.
A dimension of decentralization
in the concept of a law-abiding state
should probably be included in this
context as something new and, at first
glance, in opposition to the classical
notions of state and law.
Decentralization and disintegration
of a structure are often connected to
systemic inefficiency and rigidity.
However, talking about efficiency
makes sense only if we take into consideration
the clearly defined aims of
this system. If the aim of a law-abiding
state is at least formally defined
as the realization of human rights and
freedom, than its efficiency should
not be measured by dimensions that
are not connected to the individual,
their needs and interests.
Regional political decentralization
can become a factor in rational
divisions of power and bringing government
institutions closer to common
people. The idea of creating a
system of divided power between
centralized and decentralized authorities
embodies the idea of general
participation in power. Functional
treatment of the problem of bringing
the authorities closer to citizens is,
first of all, based on the feeling of
solidarity in the community (which is
directly connected to democracy). A
certain level of decentralization in a
country gives its citizens the means
to identify with the smaller structures
in which they live, and through them,
within the global community. In this
way people have means to express
not only their right to be different, but
also to belong to certain constellations
whose diversity makes them
richer.
When talking about a law-abiding
state, we should not think about
decreasing democracy or any kind of
centralization, but about the mechanisms
of integration of the decentralized
parts. Those mechanisms could
range from simple, spontaneous
"meetings" to complex, developed
matrix forms. It is essential first of all
to define the basis for contact, and
then to make a concrete choice about
how to integrate the decentralized
parts.
One of the basic postulates of
political pluralism (which the new
government could take into consideration)
is that there is a consensus
about essential elements of social and
governmental structure among dominant
political subjects in the society.
The consensus about basic elements
is identified as an assumption of the
stability of a political system when it
consists of groups and individuals
with very different interests.
Consensus is accepted as the second
way of establishing and dealing with
the relationship between society and
individuals, and as a specific form of
balancing and finding a common
"denominator" for actual problems.
However, a consensus can never
include the whole population. No
matter how consistently created and
institutionally formed it is, consensus
cannot exclude situations in which,
for various reasons, some ethnic or
other groups are marginalized or completely
left out of the dominant consensus.
The solution should be found
in the limited range of the quantity
and contents of the subject matter of
the consensus, or in other words, it
should be applied only to a limited
number of values basically connected
to the system and its foundations.
The second problem regarding
the application of consensus lies in
the fact that every compromise
demands an extremely high level of
professionalism, detailed examination
of the question and wide participation
of specialists, in finding an
appropriate solution. Of course, that
is a complex and slow method, and it
is often only partially effective.
However, it makes it possible to
overcome the disregard of people's
interests and their exclusion from
appropriate solutions, which is
incompatible with the modern idea of
a law-abiding state.
It is very difficult, sometimes
impossible, to reach real consensus
when a society is divided into groups
with different interests (concerning
economy as well as other areas),
when there are no obvious common
points of interest, or so called, knots
of unity.
As far as various directions of
development and new structures are
concerned, I am afraid that the new
government will only make a couple
of absurd compromises, and partial
changes in the Constitution and the
legal system. These changes will
perfectly sum up the inconsistency of
our system. They will completely
evade the sphere which lays out the
mechanisms and rules and principles
for implementation. The government
representatives will use a lot of
smoke and mirrors to hide their
weakness and inability to look for
and find solutions that will bring
more happiness to as many people as
possible.
(The author is a senior
associate at the Institute for
Sociological, Political and
Juridical Research, Skopje)
37
What now, June 2001