“There will come a day when the Ohrid Framework Agreement will be more necessary to Macedonians rather than Albanians.” I wrote this statement exactly 23 years ago, on the second anniversary of the signing of the Agreement and taken out of context triggered a wave of backlash and threats. The text was published in the magazine ‘Multiethnic Forum’ by the publisher ‘Search for Common Ground’ coordinated by Ibrahim Mehmeti and was later picked up by other media, largely due to the ‘heretic’ sentence.
Can the same be said now, 25 years later, although viewed from a reasonable, yet still insufficient, historical distance i.e. two and a half decades after the time when the majority population had perceived this compromise document, signed in the aftermath of the armed conflict, as an act of capitulation in the face of a ‘terrorist invasion’, while Albanians regarded it as ‘a victory for freedom and democratic rights’.
However painful, compromise is inherently such that the two opposing sides can be equally content and discontent, happy or unhappy, depending on the environment the politicians, media and public figures create. That was not the case in Macedonia, even though the Ohrid Agreement de facto prevented a civil war. A great tragedy, loss of life and destruction were avoided.
Macedonia was saved with the signatures of Macedonian and Albanian political leaders and the signatures of representatives of the international community, including the USA, the EU and the UN. This observation about the avoidance of a civil war is not mine alone and can be considered an assumption even today. However, the events following the breakup of Yugoslavia showcased that if these types of conflicts are not prevented on time, they lead to inevitable catastrophic consequences regardless of the victor on the battlefield. In both recent and more distant history, not only in the Balkans, there are many horrible examples of the total collapse and tragic disintegration of states.
Unfortunately, there are hot heads even today, although on a smaller scale, who believe that the Ohrid Agreement is a treason of the national and state interests. They fuel hatred and uncover the embers smouldering beneath the ashes, most commonly before elections and commemorations of the armed conflict, which from this perspective, could have been avoided if the majority population had wise statespersons to take responsibility for ensuring equal democratic rights for all citizens that live in Macedonia. That is, not only as a constitutional provision that exists only on paper, but as a crucial prerequisite for building a democratic society.
The climate that was being fostered after the declaration of the country’s independence and the nationalist euphoria did not allow for such a statesmanlike outcome, a fully civic constitution firmly committed to equal rights for all citizens, regardless of their national and religious affiliation, which is still lacking to this day. Such an approach would have stopped the armed conflict. The Ohrid Framework Agreement from 2001 is one of the historic turning point whose true meaning is not exhausted by the text that was signed, but in what it prevented from happening. At a time when Macedonia was facing an interethnic civil war, the political agreement replaced the firearms with negotiations and preserved the state as a unitary and territorially indivisible entity.
These are compelling arguments of historical significance. The Agreement and its implementation into practice set in motion profound changes that marked the recognition of the country’s multi-ethnic reality. That is, equitable representation of communities, the broader use of languages, decentralisation, and decision-making in Parliament by a Badinter majority, under which certain matters require the support of MPs belonging to ethnic communities that are not in the majority. All these changes became part of the constitutional and the political system.
With the rampant politicization of Macedonia and the ethnic political parties’ power struggles involving the coercion, granting and withdrawal of democratic rights in the formation of coalition governments, in other words, the division of power, the benefits from the Ohrid Framework Agreement that grant genuine coexistence in the Constitution and implemented to a large extent in practice, are still regarded as rights won, victories and defeats. This continues to create an unfavourable climate for the genuine coexistence we want to see and experience in Macedonia as a European democratic state.
Finally, let us clarify once again the underlying message of the idea that the Ohrid Agreement is a solution that offers a way forward for all citizens of Macedonia which the majority population needs more. Even though this is the strongest guarantee of territorial integrity, the indivisibility of the state’s territory, the fear of ethnic division is still present among a significant part of the public, often fueled by manipulation and political electoral propaganda. There is a real risk of this happening if covert attempts are made to roll back the democratic rights already secured through the practical implementation of the Ohrid Agreement. This includes attempts to justify alleged insurmountable difficulties surrounding the Badinter majority in parliamentary voting, as well as shortcomings and failures in ensuring the equitable (mis)representation of ethnic communities and the broader use of languages.
Regrettably, the political propaganda oversteps the rules of a democratic political competition for power, and it elevates its own mistakes in the implementation of the Ohrid Framework Agreement as an impediment to the future social and economic development of the country. What is overlooked is that the withdrawal of hard-won democratic rights poses one of the greatest risks for conflict and division, potentially leading to tragic consequences and the disintegration of Macedonia. The bloody breakup of Yugoslavia began with the stripping away of rights that had been secured.
The Macedonian high-ranking politicians in their public addresses abroad give the highest ranks and praise for the Ohrid Agreement that is solved the inter-ethnic issues in the region and beyond. Such high ranks are rarely heard within state limits. Another fact is also overlooked that there are other segments of the population that are covered in the Ohrid Agreement. Their marginalization is clearly visible by forcing a binational and bilingual orientation relying on percentage. Such census statistics are the design flaw of the Ohrid Agreement. That is just one more piece of evidence that Macedonia needs a fully civic constitution that guarantees equal democratic rights to all citizens, regardless of their ethnic, religious or other affiliation. Percentages are not a measure of democracy.