As a cultural professional and a civil activist, I have witnessed and participated in the processes that shaped our social reality before and after the Framework Agreement and the establishment of our “multicultural democracy”. In the period between 2017 and 2024 as a government official, I was directly responsible for the implementation of policies for intercultural dialogue and social cohesion. I gained detailed insight into the capacity of the state institutions designed and responsible for implementing the benefits from the Agreement and I got the opportunity, along with institutional, civil and international partners, to locate the weaknesses and provide solutions to improve the situation.
Based on this experience, I find the assessment that the “relaxation” of the interethnic relations is the only fundamental gain from the Ohrid Framework Agreement to be pessimistic. On the contrary, I believe it has contributed to an institutional design on par with more developed multicultural democracies. The “Framework” institutions are generally well-positioned in the state system, they exist at all levels of government, and they can efficiently enforce policies in all areas of society via the multilevel governance model. In that sense, we as citizens, and the competitive political elites in particular, lack sufficient awareness and recognition of the social contract that ended the conflict in 2001 and the perspective for social development it created. That potential remains untapped.
There are two sets of reasons for this. They are both intertwined as the two faces of Janus and you can’t make the head and the tail of them. One set of reasons is the general political, but ever more business conduct, the professional culture, the management of public as well as all other entrusted obligations and funds. It is dictated by the political elites, but also all economic and administrative structures. Often, it is unethical, and in many cases illegal, insistence on the personal, group and the interest of the political party before the public interest. Including the diseases of the modern societies which, unfortunately, have accumulated over the course of the transition: corruption, clientelism, nepotism and chronyism. A system of partitocracy, poor management without responsibility, without accountability, lack of transparency, autonomy and integrity in decision-making. The poor governance is covered by a tendency to embrace ethno-nationalist narrative, intolerance, populism and all kinds of divisions. That is the second set of reasons for our current situation.
The ethno-nationalist narrative is susceptible; it dominates in other spheres as well and has a widespread history of mobilisation and acceptance of the social mobility mechanism by excluding the other side. The result is a prominent, particularly public division, because tribal survival demands it, even when some of the citizens individually and intimately do not accept the stereotypes as their own. The comments of the social media commentators, the callers in TV talk shows and the radio listeners are “go with the flow”. Thus, creating a public discourse that stimulates distrust, prejudice, stereotyping, hate and taking the pulse of its majority. Instead of creating a critical spirit, civil responsibility and empathy towards the fellow man.
That is why, North Macedonia, 25 years after the Ohrid Framework Agreement, is the swine before whom the pearls are cast. We live in a divided, ethno-nationalist, exclusive setting, in which the contacts via the mono-ethnic identity are unwanted, forced, formal and empty. Political elites infiltrated in the state apparatus paralyze and ignore the institutions that are meant to stimulate and enable social cohesion and solidarity. They are not sufficiently and adequately staffed, they lack sufficient funding and resources to accomplish their mission and programme and their opinions are ignored. Even when they want to make a gesture of goodwill, it often takes the wrong turn, resulting in a bull-like behaviour in the china shop of interethnic relations. Certain laws are grandiosely tinkered with, using new institutions or specific projects, which undermines the fragile consensus or leads to fiddling-while-Rome-burns situations.
It is not a consolation that all institutions in the country are non-functional, not just the ones dealing with the implementation of the benefits from the Ohrid Agreement. That is the impression you get when you read a report criticizing the condition of the agencies, authorities and the Commission on Prevention and Protection against Discrimination. It is not enough for the state to spend a few thousand euros on projects for minorities and intercultural relations. All institutions are dysfunctional. All projects are insufficiently funded, with few exceptions. However, the institutions for the development of the rights of the ethnic communities, the intercultural dialogue and societal cohesion hold the key. And they should be prioritized. Particularly in these difficult times of rising xenophobia, intolerance and stigmatisation of the Other, they are the ones who need to create an environment in which diversity, community and inclusion can thrive. Multiculturalism in North Macedonia is an internal category. Building policies for inclusivity and dialogue not only protect it but also protect the global diversity that is reaching us increasingly as we are becoming part of worldwide socio-economic developments.
Where can the change begin?
Symbolically, it might start with a unified observance of the anniversary of the Framework Agreement. And I don’t mean one where the political representatives of the government and opposition are lumped together and fidget indifferently, ready and waiting to attend their own afterparty or ethnical celebration where they will display their symbols of division and hold speeches for exclusion.
I mean an observance that is the result of a political consensus and mature statesmanlike conviction that it is normal for the joint decisions to be made with negotiation and compromise. And not that the search for a mutually acceptable solution means a defeat for one side and a victory for the other. Society as a whole, including institutions responsible for memorialisation, history and the future such as museums, institutes, faculties and the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, should determine facts, provide arguments, but also create meaning and narratives that are not based on their individual truths.
I direct this line of thought toward institutions, the society and positions of power, not toward individual acts of courage by intellectuals, activists, protesters, or artists. They are always present. They receive more support from foreign governments and international agencies and foundations rather than domestic institutions. They even become more valuable and more pronounced the worse the social conditions are. Then again, that is little consolation.
Certainly, the new strategy on developing interculturalism and social cohesion is good news. As well as the new redesigned Action Plan for Ensuring the rights of smaller communities. But the bitter taste shall not leave my mouth if we stick to policy documents alone. One can argue that in the past decade, we have strengthened our strategic thinking, and we have become a country with a good track record. Unfortunately, the content has become little more than dead letter. We require coordinated actions and multi-year consistency once the plans are adopted. Furthermore, political positions that are loud, meaningful and strong to inspire a true shift and be the wind in the sails of social transformation. Such impulse was created with the government programme “One Society for all”. It is precisely the loss of momentum in the following years, after the initial euphoria of the political actors subsided, where we learned that it is insufficient. Without continuous and daily programme work of well-staffed competent institutions, no permanent and sustainable change in citizens’ lives can be made.
We are not sufficiently informed about each other. We share the territory, the country, the resources, the institutions and the future. If we don’t build one, united and shared society, we are de facto divided. A federation of minds. The incompetent ones can reiterate that the state is unitary, while there is no cooperation, compassion and nothing is built collectively.
I do not believe in catastrophic scenarios. Societies have survived Auschwitz, Dаyton and Ohrid. However, there is a historic opportunity that should be seized. I am a firmer believer in the irony of destiny. If the generation that needs to preserve, embody and strengthen the spirit of the Ohrid Framework Agreement fails, a new generation will follow, whether it is Gen Z, students or a sheltered generation. Perhaps, they will take us into historical irrelevance overnight. And they will follow their own consensus and their own rules of hope.