Civic and Uncivic Values in Macedonia

Value Transformation, Education and Media

Sabrina P. Ramet, O. Listhaug, A. Simkus

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781137302823
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Social History
• Index: History

One of the central challenges facing Macedonia, along with other Yugoslav successor states, is to develop civic values and to combat such uncivic values as ethnic intolerance, religious bigotry, and homophobia. This volume brings together specialists in Macedonian affairs to offer insights into the experiences and values of the Macedonians.

1

Introduction

Sabrina P. Ramet

I

The Republic of Macedonia was born on 8 September 1991, when a republic-wide referendum endorsed independence. Inhabited by Slavs since the sixth century, Macedonia had been contested from around 600 until about 850. Subsequently, Macedonia came under Bulgarian rule from 864 to 971, was ruled locally from 971 to 1018, was part of the Byzantine Empire from 1018 to 1387 and (although it was not completely conquered by the Ottomans until 1430), was thereafter part of the Ottoman Empire until the Balkans Wars of 1912–13. In the course of those wars, Macedonia was partitioned among Serbia (which took what came to be called Vardar Macedonia), Bulgaria (holding onto Pirin Macedonia), and Greece (taking control of southern or Aegean Macedonia), with small slivers of land inhabited by Macedonians falling to Albania.¹ The Serbian portion was first part of the Kingdom of Serbia, then part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (1918–29), subsequently renamed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1929–41), and was granted autonomous status as the Socialist Republic of Macedonia in communist-ruled Yugoslavia after World War Two. Although many Macedonians had considered themselves Bulgarians before World War Two, the behavior of the Bulgarian army, which occupied almost all of Vardar Macedonia during that war, alienated local residents. The communist Partisans declared the establishment of the Republic of Macedonia, as a constituent unit in communist Yugoslavia. After the war, the Macedonian language was standardized, and an orthography was created on the basis of three central dialects; the orthography was influenced by both literary and political considerations, and contributed to strengthening Macedonian identity.² Josip Broz Tito, the Yugoslav leader (first as prime minister, later as president for life), encouraged the development of a distinct Macedonian consciousness – among other things, by supporting the establishment of a Macedonian Orthodox Church in 1967 (much to the chagrin of Serbian Orthodox hierarchs, who have continued to claim jurisdiction over ecclesiastical affairs and properties under the de facto control of the Macedonian Church).

At the end of World War Two, Macedonia was heavily agrarian. In 1945, there were only 140 factories operating in Macedonia, employing just 3,391 workers. Agriculture and animal husbandry accounted for 58% of the Macedonian economy (in 1946), with industry and mining making up 15%.³ The communist regime in Belgrade initially prioritized restoring economic output to pre-1941 levels, but political considerations soon came into play, with the nationalization of hitherto private enterprises and the establishment of workers’ councils. Macedonian culture flourished during the years it was part of socialist Yugoslavia, and measures aimed at industrialization showed some results. Thus, by the end of the socialist era, industry and mining accounted for 54% of the Macedonian economy, while agriculture had declined to 17%.⁴ But Macedonia registered the second highest rate of population growth among the eight federal units between 1961 and 1981, with only Kosovo showing a higher rate of increase.⁵ Educational levels were also problematic in Macedonia and, as of 1971, 25% of Macedonian adults had three years or less of elementary school education, while another 45% had between four and seven years.⁶ These factors contributed to a decline in Macedonia’s economic position in comparison with the Yugoslav average. Indeed, Macedonia’s social product per worker, which had stood at 86% of the Yugoslav average in 1975, sank steadily to 70% in 1986. In 1987 unemployment in Macedonia was reported at 26.7%; among the other seven constituent federal units, only Kosovo reported a higher rate of unemployment.⁷ Because of these economic challenges, Macedonia was among those regions that benefited from federal agency funding to less developed parts of the country from 1965.

For Macedonia, therefore, inclusion in socialist Yugoslavia offered real benefits and breaking the economic ties was fraught with risk. However, after Slovenia and Croatia declared their independence in June 1991, sentiment for Macedonian independence grew and the break came three months later. By 29 November 1991 the Republic of Macedonia had a new constitution, and the following month it applied for recognition by the European Community (EC), as the European Union was called at that time. An EC Arbitration Committee was appointed and, after reviewing the cases of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Macedonia, it declared that “only Slovenia and Macedonia met EC criteria for recognition, including those related to human rights.”⁸ But, while Slovenia and Croatia were recognized by the most important EC member states in December 1991 and by the USA in April 1992, Macedonia remained unrecognized by most states at the time, as a result of Greek objections to Macedonia’s name and state symbols; it claimed rather improbably that the Republic of Macedonia might harbor intentions to reclaim part or all of Aegean Macedonia, from which Greece had expelled large numbers of locally resident Macedonians at the end of the Greek Civil War of 1944–49. In the hope of nullifying this objection, the Macedonian Assembly adopted amendments to the state constitution in December 1991, unambiguously renouncing territorial pretensions which it had not nurtured in the first place and declaring its respect for the principle of noninterference in the internal affairs of other states. The Macedonian government further agreed to change the country’s flag but not the name of the country. The Greeks declared themselves unsatisfied and, as a consequence, the Greek government has blockaded Macedonian entry into both the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU) up to today. The Greek government also imposed an economic embargo on Macedonia, which had crippling effects on the country.

In June 1993, Slobodan Milošević, president of Serbia, made contact with the government in Athens to propose the creation of a Serbian– Greek confederation.⁹ Nothing came of this proposal, but it could only have excited Macedonian fears of a potential partition of their country between Serbia and Greece – which, in turn, could only have been reinforced by the repeated Greek violations of Macedonian air space during 1992 and the first part of 1993.¹⁰ Macedonia was admitted to the United Nations on 8 April 1993 under the awkward temporary name “The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,”¹¹ and, as a result of an “interim accord” brokered by the USA and signed in New York on 13 September, Athens called off its economic blockade of Macedonia, and Athens and Skopje agreed to strengthen economic relations and develop scientific and technical cooperation.¹²

The economic and foreign policy challenges which Macedonia has faced are serious enough, but added to that has been the disputed ethnic composition of the population. According to the official results of the 1994 census, Macedonians accounted for 66.5% of the population, with Albanians making up 22.9%. No other group was reported to constitute more than 4% of the population.¹³ The Albanians disputed this result, with some claims suggesting they constituted as much as 40% of the country’s population. There were also demands for an Albanian-language state university and claims that Albanians did not enjoy either equal treatment or proportional representation in government posts, higher ranks in the military, or the police. Macedonia’s path to statehood has, therefore, been a most difficult one.

The country has had four presidents since independence: Kiro Gligorov (Social Democrat), who served two terms from 1991 to 1999 and has been credited with keeping Macedonia out of the War of Yugoslav Succession; Boris Trajkovski (IMRO-Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity), who was elected in 1999 but who was killed in a plane crash in February 2004 before finishing his term in office; Branko Crvenkovski (Social Democrat), who had previously served as prime minister of Macedonia and who served as president from 2004 to 2009; and Gjorge Ivanov (IMRO-Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity), a professor of political science at the Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje, who was elected to office in 2009. As is already suggested by the party affiliations of the presidents who have served in office, the main two political parties are the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO)-Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity (hereafter simply IMRO Party), which dominates the right wing of the political spectrum, and the Social Democratic Party, which dominates the left wing and which, in 2008, headed an electoral bloc called the Sun Coalition for Europe. In elections held on 1 June 2008, the IMRO Party emerged in first place, winning 63 seats in the parliament; the Sun Coalition won 27 seats, with 19 seats going to the Democratic Union for Integration (DUI, an Albanian party), 11 to the Democratic Party of Albanians (DPA), and one seat to the Party for a European Future.¹⁴ Fresh parliamentary elections were held on 5 June 2011, and resulted in a boost to the number of Social Democratic deputies. The electoral results gave the IMRO Party 53 seats, with 43 seats going to the Social Democratic Party, 14 to the DUI, eight to the DPA, and two to the National Democratic Revival.¹⁵ Nikola Gruevski (IMRO Party) has served as prime minister since 2006, and his party has been in coalition with Ali Ahmeti’s DUI since 2008.

II

This volume focuses on the role that civic and uncivic values have played in Macedonia’s first two decades of independence. Part I focuses precisely on values and agents of socialization. Chapter 2 (Sabrina P. Ramet) summarizes eight civic virtues which make for a liberal polity. These are: respect for the harm principle, tolerance, equality, a commitment to reasonableness, civility, empathy, truthfulness, and engagement, meaning a commitment to keep oneself informed about the issues affecting the community in which one lives. Chapter 3 (Kristen Ringdal, Albert Simkus, and Ola Listhaug) uses data from the European Value Study to compare civic values in Macedonia with those in other European countries. The authors find that social and political trust are relatively low in Macedonia, while the level of reported happiness is high, and general support for democracy is very high. In terms of political interest, Macedonians scored about average compared with the rest of Europe. Chapter 4 (Hasan Jashari and Albert Simkus) compares the values of Macedonians with the values of Albanians living in Macedonia. Drawing upon the results of surveys conducted within the framework of the South-East European Social Survey Project, a follow-up survey in Macedonia in late 2005, and other data, the authors assess differences and commonalities in the responses of Albanians and Macedonians in terms of gender relations, religiosity, understanding of morality, and ethnic tolerance and intolerance. Part I ends with Stefano Bianchini’s chapter on Macedonia and the EU. This chapter explores, among other things, Macedonian attitudes concerning the EU and finds that, while 48.8% of those surveyed said that they considered entry into the EU to be the “most relevant” goal for the country, this increased to more than 70% by May 2004, before declining to just under 44% in February 2007. Chapter 5 also notes that the Macedonian Orthodox Church has been doing its best to sustain and promote traditional values, justifying gender inequality, among other things.

Part II brings together four chapters about the political system. In Chapter 6, Biljana Vankovska outlines processes of constitutional engineering and institution-building between 1991 and 2011. As she rightly notes, the rule of law, and thus liberal democracy, require a firm anchoring in a constitution and in legitimate institutions which, citing Robin Luckham et al., she calls “the building blocks of democracy.” This chapter outlines the main features of the constitution of 1991 and discusses adaptations to the system after the Ohrid Framework Agreement of August 2001, which was framed in order to address the grievances of the country’s Albanians.

Her chapter is followed by Gordana Siljanovska Davkova’s chapter outlining the role played by the political parties in the consolidation of democracy in the republic. As Siljanovska Davkova notes, Macedonia’s path to a pluralist system went through three phases, with the League of Communists of Macedonia (LCM) playing a central role in the first phase, during which it tried to control, delay, and relativize pluralizing tendencies. During the second phase (in the late 1980s) the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (LCY) fractured, leaving the LCM to chart its own course; and in the third phase (starting in 1990), constitutional amendments made it possible for 23 political parties to register. Siljanovska Davkova emphasizes that the leading ethnic political parties are free of radical tendencies.

Chapter 8 (Dejan Marolov) focuses specifically on the Ohrid Agreement, outlining its goals, basic principles, and provisions. As he shows, decentralization or devolution of power to local authorities, provisions to assure the equitable representation of members of all ethnic groups in public bodies, modifications in voting procedures in the Macedonian Parliament, and new regulations affecting the official use of languages and language of instruction in the educational sector have been among the chief changes effected by the agreement.

Part II closes with Chapter 9 by Ilo Trajkovski focusing on the development of civil society, which he defines as “numerous forms of smaller or bigger associations, societies, communities etc., more or less organized but whose ‘civil’ status is guaranteed by the State.” He reports that the number of civil society organizations more than doubled during the first two decades of independence. He also advances the thesis that, in the context of...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Preface
• Notes on Contributors
• 1. Introduction
• Part I: Values and Agents of Socialization
• Part II: The System
• Part III: Ethnic Issues
• Part IV: Education and Media
• Part V: Literature
• Afterword: Comments on Macedonia’s Difficult Transition
• Further Reading
• Index