Polyparty-ism - Search for Common Ground

96
their identity is jeopardized. (These are
manifested as a need to identify and
glorify new heros who fought on opposite
sides in the conflict; a forced display
of religion, by means of building
bigger monuments; emphasizing ethnic
symbols with clear-cut delineation of
ethnic borders; defining "evil" with
clear ethnic connotation, which is mostly
apparent in the act of "revealing" the
link between particular criminal acts
and a specific ethnic community.) Such
manifestations serve only to deepen the
gap and incapacitate communication.
The openly manifested identity of
the "other," expressed difference, the
posed demand, are perceived and experienced
as a direct attack on the space
where I manifest "my" identity, as confinement
of my particularity and as an
inability to realize my requests. In the
previous post-conflict period an effort
has not been made to expand the common
space so as to fit difference, selfidentity,
and meeting different interests
and needs, nor have alternative solutions
been offered that will open the
way to the civil option. In this area
interethnic relations are stuck in a deadend
which offers nothing but a new conflict.
EMOTIONS IMPEDE
NEGOTIATIONS
One feature of interethnic conflicts
is their highly emotional charge, which
approaches the very essence of identity
and can accumulate much collective
energy. The already existing negative
emotions add up to the feeling of injustice,
as a usual inheritance of brutal
internal conflicts. Emotions, feeling of
injustice, and remembrances from
severe violations of human rights during
armed clashes impede negotiations
and stall the process. Differences in
how victims of the conflict have been
perceived and the nurturing of collective
memories deepen the gaps between
members of ethnic communities, while
collective and individual traumas have
been provoked over and over without
offering a suitable treatment. The lack
of any sort of post-conflict therapy for
all participants in armed activities
enables the creation of a mass of disoriented
malcontents who do not stand a
chance to fit into everyday life. Without
the equal, unbiased and fair exercising
of justice, without explanation and
transparency in making political decisions
aimed at tackling the conflict, and
without a serious engagement towards
socializing the conflicted sides, one can
not expect unity and confidence-building.
On this issue, we are again in a
dead-end that does not offer a way out
except through a new conflict.
The long-term strategy to lessen
interethnic tensions comprises ability of
the appropriate democratic structures to
function and creation of a democratic
atmosphere on the overall social and
political scene. Is consistent building
and respecting of the democratic institutions
(even when it seems petty,
unnecessary and trivial, or when it
seems like we could find simpler and
more efficient solutions) the only guarantee?
A mechanism capable of managing
conflicts also needs to be established.
The democratic system has to have
features such as: legitimacy, inclusiveness,
flexibility and capacity to constantly
adjust as a pre-requisite for managing
deeply rooted conflicts.
Promotion of such underlying democratic
values as pluralism, tolerance,
negotiation and compromise, are considered
to be essential in building a dam
for potential armed solutions to a conflict.
Contrary to this, in the previous
period citizens received a message that
nothing can be achieved by means of
state organs and institutions, while
political and any other sort of violence
is a quite efficient means. This message
only brings us closer to a new conflict.
DESTROYING ALL
CHANCES FOR
INTERPERSONAL
COMMUNICATION
Long-term democratic development
is constantly thwarted by requests for
quick and visible changes. The constant
pressure for quick fixes (according to
the principle, now and everything), taking
into account different and opposing
aspirations and objectives of particular
ethnic communities, leads to a complete
denial of the structure and the legal system.
In such cases speed does not usually
correspond to quality, and form
remains an empty shell without suitable
content. Agreements should be a result
of negotiation, finding common points
and joint solutions, they are to offer
alternative solutions and should reach
consensus generally as well as for each
point in particular. Only this type of
agreement can be efficiently implemented
in practice. The solution to the
interethnic tensions in Republic of
Macedonia has been questioned to a
great extent especially because of the
agreement known as the Ohrid
Framework Agreement.
Due to the urgency of the matter
and various pressures (in particular
from the international community) an
agreement was prepared that does not
satisfy the negotiating parties. It contains
a great number of inconsistencies
and as such implies extensive political
voluntarism in tackling legal issues that
will appear in the course of its implementation.
This implies that in the
implementation stage many crucial
issues should be tackled but such shifts
in the legal system make it unstable and
inconsistent. Thus, the process of
implementation is constantly postponed,
which in its turn creates insecurity,
distrust of the system and a sense
among the citizens of prolonged instability
of the state. Applying the slowfast
principle in solving conflicts, a new
source of interethnic tensions is created.
The way out of the cycle of conflict is
blocked, so negative behavior of one
side is felt as a provocation and a pretext
for a suitable response which, in the
long run, terminates with a request for
political intervention and justification
for not obeying laws.
The unfavorable economic situation
lays a foundation for expanding
interethnic tensions and inciting conflicts.
Shortly after the armed conflict in
the Republic of Macedonia, not only
did the economy indicators not
improve, but also production slackened,
all aspects of the economy deteriorated,
and living standards fell.
Impoverishment is omnipresent and
disregards ethnicity. However, it is not
considered a common problem, and
instead it is used as a tool for inciting
interethnic tensions. Violence in the
economy damages all citizens, although
it is often successfully portrayed as ethnically
tainted or defined. For example,
"the others" avoid paying taxes, "the
A new beginning, November 2002