Leaders of (non)agreements
By Bardhyl ZAIMI
The two leaders, Zaev and Mickoski, failed to reach an agreement on the law on public prosecution, which is considered essential to the fate and status of the SPO. This law should actually restructure the justice system in North Macedonia based on the expectations of the citizens, who in the establishment of institutional mechanisms of justice see the only hope for ending the political transition and the incriminated system.
The parties, meanwhile, have continued to argue over who is seriously committed to structuring and reforming the justice system. However, it seems that party causes lie in the backdrop of this debate on the law on public prosecution in parliament and they make it difficult to find a solution.
In Macedonia, parties not once knew how to put their interests first, creating nervous and complicated situations that actually favored their party calculations to the detriment of a process and the installation of a necessary scheme of law and the normal functioning of institutions.
It seems that this time the parties will also play their game. And a big dilemma really opens up here about the whole logic of the political agreements that happened and that are expected to happen. Especially at a time when the justice system has to prove many cases of corruption in the past, and at present, many cases processed by the SPO led by Janeva, who was then herself involved in a corrupt affair.
The transition in North Macedonia already has a series of “agreements” made somewhere in the background of politics, where personal and group interests are usually played out. Agreements are part of political and democratic life, but only when they are in the service of a more meaningful vision, when they are in the service of qualitatively overcoming a given situation. Such agreements imply a continuous debate and a dialogue, they imply knowledge and principles for overcoming a political situation that carries the risk of creating extreme polarizations, and thus a political conflict.
North Macedonia has so far gone through many such phases of political blockade, which were the result of wrong policies and in many cases incriminated. As usual, they had political agreements that put an end to blockades coming out of party laboratories, which are interpreted as blockades coming from the destructive policies of one party or another.
Political parties are an electoral will and the rule and all political and democratic life is determined by that will. However, this original will was not always the accepted logic of political functioning. In most cases this will is completely disfigured and degenerated into a kind of vulgar elitism, which has always taken care of political agreements behind the scenes of political incrimination.
So far there has been no agreement between the government and the opposition, but regardless of the fact there is an agreement or not, the logic of producing political and systemic blockades for party calculations or interests must end.
Only the establishment of a coherent system of values can produce sustainable development and alignment with European values. No agreement can work if it is done for other purposes, beyond the expectations of the citizens to punish the offenders, those who hold it as a pledge of social and institutional normality.
We cannot know if there will be an agreement for strong party positions, but we know what kind of agreements we need. North Macedonia needs correct political arrangements to reform the entire justice system. A functional justice system that will not tolerate crime and corruption.
*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.
- A Call to Defend Democracy - June 26, 2020
- Oral hearings in German Constitutional Court about the law on global internet surveillance by German foreign intelligent Agency (BND) - January 14, 2020
- The noise of criticism without arguments - October 1, 2019