North Macedonia must embrace the consensual democracy of the European Union and some of its member countries

Written by Driton Ibishi

It requires some dwelling into history, some critical thinking, and an open mind to discuss European values beyond its borders. In reaching a better conclusion, we must always look back and employ history in making more informed decisions. First, it is important to know why and how the European Union was founded, on which pillars it was based, and what were its objectives.

The idea of the European Union first came up as a concept that would forever prevent future conflicts in the continent. Nationalism and politics of the European countries were seen as obstacles in reaching lasting peace. In an environment with limited resources and infinite needs and desires, European countries have been fighting for resources for which politics served as an instrument of nationalist political appetites and/or daily politics. It was first projected that Europe deals with concrete issues at hand and that political decisions would be handed over to technocrats and bureaucrats that are inspired with the idea of cooperation and long-term interests. It is for the same reasons that still today, the European Union is led by technocrats. It was Neo-Functionalism leading the beginnings of the European Integration.

We have three crucial game-players in the continent that have shaped history, United Kingdom, which is no longer in the EU, Germany, and France. It is widely accepted that states are built on the foundation of sovereignty, but as realists would note, “States don’t have permanent friends, only permanent interests.” Having said that, states see each other from the conflict prism, and as a result, they increase military spending, national security and police. In Europe, national states have always applied this form of politics. One example from history tells us that Germany and France have been on an ongoing competition over influence and resources, and therefore, they have “permanently” been at war. The second World War resulted due to unhealthy nationalist motives. The reason of the conflict is striking and devastating, but what is even more striking, is the idea of getting past the conflicts, the idea of building lasting peace in Europe which reflects hope and cooperation.

In striving to unite the continent, there are a few ways one might think of, two of which come as more insightful and important to me. The first way is to make Europe a federate, similar to the United States. However, this is highly debatable, and to a certain degree unrealistic and unattainable because Europe is a multi-ethnic continent which means that people have a different way of life, culture, and of course, countries’ focus on the economy differs. The second way of uniting Europe is through the economy. This is what we are seeing today, it is in full practice with a system of laws, the well-known European Single Market, the four freedoms containing the free movement of goods, free movement of capital, the freedom to establish and provide services, the free movement of individuals, and the common monetary union.

Why was this way established? This is a plausible way of uniting the continent due to the high importance and priority that the economy holds. Politics cannot counter economic interests as that would be destructive and disruptive. It could also escalate to greater problems and turn into political issues. Nobody wants that. Therefore, after being economically integrated, European countries have been obliged to integrate politically within the European Union. This kind of politics has been dominating the European Union since the beginnings, first with European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 (The Treaty of Paris), and secondly, the European Economic Community in 1957 (The Treaty of Rome) which united the states economically and then politically.

However, there is more to Europe than the economic aspect. These rules, treaties and agreements, and values have shown to be an exemplary solution in overcoming past conflicts. The European Union is based on the idea of liberal democracy and cultural diversity. It promotes values such as individual freedom, rule of law, market economy, human rights to say the least. Such a system proved successful by employing consensus as the pillar of cooperation between member states and it spoke volumes that countries can really cooperate better in a union. Nevertheless, it also has its flaws, but the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.

Once a very hostile region, the epicenter of two World Wars, Europe learnt through conflict that countries really need each other, the manifestation of which was the European Union. It set an example in going past the conflicts, transparency issues, democratic development, economic development and trade, and most importantly, in promoting peace and liberty. The benchmark that the EU sets is high. It is not only the EU that looks forward to enlargement, but it is also other European countries that are not in the Union, wanting to embrace the system and become part of it. I would argue that this is a two-way street. As a citizen of North Macedonia, this is a very important topic in daily politics and a strategic country objective. North Macedonia is on the brink of opening the accession talks with European Union (it is still facing a dispute with Bulgaria over historical events and figures), and both parties (EU and North Macedonia) would benefit from one another. The influence of the EU would extend further into the hostile region of Balkans, and it is also in North Macedonia’s best interest, politically and economically.

Furthermore, having mentioned North Macedonia, I would exploit the opportunity of this article to express my point-of-view that would complement my arguments as to why EU rules and system would be desirable. As I mentioned earlier, the work of the EU’s main institutions is based on consensus, and that is because of the cultural diversity and multi ethnicity of the region. The Balkans, and North Macedonia to some degree, is a tender region. We have seen conflicts in the past between ethnic groups. In my opinion, I would consider consensus to be the new regulation for North Macedonia as well, since it is a multi-ethnic country with different cultures among the state, and different languages spoken among different ethnicities. I’d argue that each ethnicity’s economy differs in nature, and therefore, region’s economies differ. There are four main points one must note from this situation, and those are past conflicts, different languages, different culture (religion included) among ethnicities, different economies. Since we have this kind of environment, it is of the like of the European Union, full of diversity, something EU and we cherish. Therefore, a consensual democracy system would make sense and be the better fit and fix, albeit the small territory and population of North Macedonia.

From the unworthy representation and lack of reaching a majority to vote on the laws that citizens of certain ethnic groups demand and need, arises the need for another type of decision-making mechanism in order for full autonomy to be given to these people for issues that concern a certain ethnic group. There have been plenty policies implemented that made a certain group worse off. So, why not solve these issues with a consensual democracy? In this case the solution to these concerns would arguably be the application of a dispersed decision-making mechanism which takes into account the opinions of wider groups of the population and that it distributes to them the decision-making capacity, the vetoing, the new territorial and fiscal division through federalizing, cantonizing or simply giving more power to municipalities.

This system and model remove the possibility of a “dictatorship” and the phenomenon of a permanent majority of politicians staying in power for too long. Furthermore, it brings autonomy and dispersed decision-making processes resulting in more objective and effective solutions for the people of this country. Consensual democracy is a way by which we can commit to protect the interests of all ethnic groups, women’s representation, public policy and economic outcomes which make up for a fairer and a more just state. If we take the example of European countries, this seems to be a model that suits all ethnic groups in the country except those with ultra-nationalist attitudes. Consensual democracy can be achieved in a various of ways, but it would make sense to initially start by initiating formal procedures for amending and supplementing the law on the functioning of government, where the position of Deputy Prime Minister with vetoing capacity, according to the amended law, should be reserved for the political leader coming from the legitimate political party of the Albanian community that constitutes over 20% of the total population. And then, it can be improved through bicameral parliament and manifest the values of democracy that we all cherish.

We could, for instance, take Switzerland and/or Belgium as textbook examples. What does Switzerland and Belgium have in common with North Macedonia? Well, multiethnicity and cultural diversity. In Switzerland, German-speaking regions speak German, French regions speak French, Italian regions speak Italian and Romani regions speak Romani. In addition, they enjoy full autonomy of decision-making through cantonization which is a form of decentralization of power. In the above-mentioned countries, the population is diverse where different languages, cultures, and economies predominate. To the best of my knowledge, Belgium makes great use of consensual democracy. I want to highlight that the demographics of Belgium is similar to that of North Macedonia because data from the former country shows a 60% Flemish population who speak Dutch, approximately 30% Walloons, which are romanized Celts and speak French, and around 10% of the population being German and other ethnicities. Only 0.7% speak German, but still German is an official language. We could summarize that in Belgium there are three official languages and the country is divided in regions accordingly. According to the last census data of 2001, North Macedonia’s demographics consists of 65% Macedonians, 25% Albanians, and 10% of other ethnicities. So, we have pretty similar demographic data with Belgium, but we are too far from applying the “Belgium system”. Thus, as already mentioned above, it would make sense that a consensual democracy would be the best fix and fit albeit the small territory and population of North Macedonia. After all, what we want is to embrace the European system, right? So, why not apply it at home?

Based on the background elaborated, the work of the European Union so far, the rules and values of the Union and member countries, I would argue that EU’s path and system as normatively desirable.