By Bardhyl ZAIMI
Prolonged transition in Macedonia does not easily give up. This transition has all the time broken the possibility of a better life for everyone, emphasizing the inertia of certain interest groups in every political action. The term “transition” seems like the perfect management of political, economic and social realities by elites and narrow interest groups. Despite the fact that good governance policies have always been noisy, reality has shown the opposite, constant depression of the citizens, a sort of disappointment that has arisen and other horrible ways away from the debate and the true political and democratic participation.
During this prolonged period there have also been nationalistic and folklore discourses that served more for the political parties and created unnecessary ethnic, ideological and social tensions. As in all troubled Balkan countries, the spices of political folklore gave a “taste” of triumph to political elites, but they have thrown the citizens out of the welfare regardless of their ethnic and religious affiliation. When the politics needed them, they used exactly these folk balloons to reach the only goal-power.
All this time on the political scene in Macedonia, with few exceptions, the same figures are recycled in the political life, either directly or indirectly, gray eminence that was put in the role of independent personalities. In the most brutal sense of the word the government was a subject of political “formations”, which in no case did perceive political life as a comprehensive reflection of values and standards, but as a means of creating a continuity of dominance at the top of the pyramid of power.
Whenever the government appears to be discussed in the worst form, it is always the formulation of Stefan Zweig that the government has the look of the medusa that comes into expression. This “look” seizes you, stiffens you and opens only one way in front of the person, the one of power, understood as power and control. Undoubtedly, politics cannot be reduced to this rough performance only because it is much more, it is a kind of organization of polish art that is understood through the modernity of contemporary politics that we see in the developed Western countries.
Realistically, in the area of intellectual thinking, even today there is a broad debate about what the power essentially is. More and more in philosophical thinking about what power, politics and democracy are, Michel Foucault and Jurgen Habermas are put in opposite positions. For Foucault, relations with the government are a strategic relationship in an open political and social game. In a way, Foucault sees all relations of power as they emerge realistically, through certain concepts that bear its seal, such as knowledge, power, discourse, ideology. And these concepts are treated by him, in the form of complex interdependencies, which Foucault notes and interprets through extreme truthfulness.
On the other hand, regarding the interpretation of power, politics and democracy, philosopher Habermas believes that there is a real nature of language that as such means a medium of communicative rationality. He believes in a cultural context, while putting all the communication into a single premise – an argument. His theory of communication essentially means language as socialization. Habermas goes even further with his concept of “Lifeworld” as the sole essence of the existence of European identity.
Undoubtedly, the attitude of the government towards politics and democratic life generally seems complicated. In Macedonia, it still seems that the concepts which see politics only as power for power dominate, and all discourses are upgraded only in this direction, without taking into account other manifestations of politics that have dialogue, tolerance, good governance and humanization of social relations in the foreground.
Certainly, they remain topics that need to be discussed extensively, so that politics is not reduced exclusively in the powerful discourse. The tendency for such a downfall always produces political arrogance, which, unfortunately, has already become a public discourse for many of the citizens present in social networks. Already, with few exceptions, there is really no room for argumentative debate, but there is a wide range of online media that mostly produce false news and in the comments we have endless insults.
This might be called arrogance of arrogance. On the one hand, the political arrogance that failed to descend for a long time in human reality, on the other hand, the arrogance of the average world that is “emptied” over the elites and unfaithful ideologies. And here, at this moment, communication ends, the communicative action, as defined by Habermas, for a common space and interest based on the principles of good governance and the ongoing dialogue that puts in the arena of debate without any prejudice and with tolerance all possible topics that should mark a step forward towards the functional system that has the man in the epicenter as an unrepeatable and dignified creature in all spheres of his existence.
Macedonia has now entered a more peaceful phase, in other coordinates that require horizons and other practices of conception of power, politics and democratic life generally. At least in the discursive aspect, there are signs that something can be changed, always relying on the dedication of the practices emanating from the European countries, part of which we want to become. But in the meantime, we are ahead of the presidential election, at a time when irrationalities are in flames and battles are created without choosing the tools. Perhaps we will finally see a battle of concepts in line with the nature of these elections, and not average party partisan mobilizations.
*The text is written exclusively for the purposes of Inbox 7. For each republishing, a consent by the editors must be obtained. Inbox 7 does not always agree with the opinions and views of the authors in the debate section.