After 50 Years, Old Dilemmas All Over Again?

Will the tenth anniversary of Macedonian political pluralism bring back on the political scene the dilemmas which many Macedonians considered to have become definitely a part of the past and unrepeatable history: the question of Macedonian national identity and capability of the Macedonians to have their own state?

AIM Skopje, October 31, 2000

Krste Crvenkovski, former high official from the time of socialism and SFRY, a man who was considered to be a liberal in comparison with the "hardcore" communists, in the end of the eighties at dawn of Macedonian political pluralism when new parties were announced and started to emerge, was the first to react to certain phenomena which he believed could be disastrous for Macedonian national identity. At the time Crvenkovski warned against signs of appearance of a new division among the Macedonians into Serbophiles, Bulgaria lovers and others, the process characteristic for their history from the 19th century until the Second World war and the People's Liberation War which was believed to have appeased this internal division. To be perfectly honest nobody had taken seriously the words of Crvenkovski certain that it was just a phobia of a retired politician who could not get rid of the old communist views and was afraid of the old nightmares.

A few days ago in Forum biweekly, Stojan Andov, member of parliament in all three compositions and with roots in the former system and state, appeared with a personal stand titled "For How Much Longer Shall We Allow Macedonian Past Reflect on Its Future?" As the first chairman of Macedonian pluralistic parliament and one of those who played a significant role in creation of Macedonian independence and undoubtedly an experienced politician, Andov thought it fit to express his general concern in public. Starting from the hypothesis that "we are all citizens of Macedonia", that the concept of Macedonians should be understood as the "Macedonian people", and that for Macedonians as an ethnic category the term "ethnic Macedonians" should be introduced, in a segment of this composite and polysemantic text, Andov speaks of shadows of the past". "Ethnic Macedonians in our country are still divided into 'true Macedonians' and 'Serbomaniacs', 'Bulgaria-lovers' or as some people say 'new Bulgarians' etc.", Andov writes. He explains that this was a part of the past in which "historical circumstances had warned the Macedonians to be either Serbomaniacs or pro-Serb oriented, Bulgaria phobics, pro-Bulgaria oriented and Bulgarians, pro-Turk oriented and Turks". For Andov "creation of independent Macedonia made these historical circumstances disappear and new reality was created. That is why divisions should stop. This is the first political task of all ethnic Macedonians".

The warning of Andov: "If we free ourselves of divisions, mutual cursing and extermination, we - ethnic Macedonians - will be able to carry out our role in development of the state, and thus we will help ethnic Macedonians who live outside the Republic of Macedonia" is no less dramatic than that of Crvenkovski, except that in Andov's case a whole series of events in Macedonia provided arguments in favour of such a dramatic reaction, while for Crvenkovski the fact that speaks in his favour is that an increasing number of people have come to see what he had observed ten years ago.

Ever since its foundation, VMRO-DPMNE party has been accused of its pro-Bulgarian orientation. In the past couple of years, its opponents have intensified accusations claiming that having come to power it not just advocated but implemented this orientation to the detriment of Macedonian ethnic identity and the state of Macedonia, and not only through uncritical abandoning of the doctrine of equal distance in relations with the neighbours and dangerous rapprochement with Bulgaria. Internal tensions in VMRO-DPMNE concerning this question a couple of years ago brought about excommunication of the then secretary general of the party Boris Zmejkovski, and recently because of "abandoning of Macedonian national interest" six members of VMRO-DPMNE who were also members of parliament left this party. Former minister of culture Dimitar Dimitrov who bore the label of a pro-Bulgarian oriented and who during his term in office appointed persons who consider themselves Bulgarians to be directors of national and university library and Ohrid summer festival, has been appointed ambassador of Macedonia in Russia, instead of being appointed to the same post in Sofia. About ten days ago the first Macedonian president Kiro Gligorov expressed concern for the survival of Macedonia as a state because of the increasingly pro-Bulgarian policy of the current administration.

As a cherry on top of it all came the incident at the promotion of Radko association in Skopje Holiday Inn. This is an association of citizens which took for its name the alias of Ivan Vanco Mihajlov, a man who was the symbol of the efforts to deny ethnic identity of the Macedonians from the twenties of this century until the end of his life in the eighties. He claimed that the Macedonians were just Bulgarians who lived in Macedonia as a geographic term only. At the promotion, two young people who later presented themselves as "Macedonian gemijias” (following the example of Macedonian terrorists from the beginning of the twentieth century) threw two smoke bombs, Bulgarian ambassador was present at the gathering, and a journalist was injured who had in the past several years been ardently fighting against Bulgarianisation of the Macedonians and Macedonia. Radko case caused a great turmoil in public, and establishment of the association and its activities are causing sharp condemnation and resulted in demands that it be banned.

For three weeks and 11 days already a dispute has been going on in Macedonian parliament on “2000 local elections: their course, irregularities and attacks against deputies of VMRO, their homes and families – True Macedonian reform options”. On Monday at the session of the parliament, a sharp conflict broke out between deputy Petar Gosev from Liberal Democratic Party and a group of deputies of VMRO-DPMNE concerning connections between “local elections and Vanco Mihajlova”. Gosev who during the campaign for local elections spoke a lot about Bulgarianisation of Macedonian society under auspices of the regime, was asked to offer arguments in favour of that. Gosev tried to do it from the platform of the parliament, but he was warned not to do it and the session was interrupted when he failed to satisfy the demand of the chairman “to stick to the agenda of the parliament”. Nevertheless, Gosev succeeded in his intention and presented in the continuation of the session a series of examples which according to him indicated the connection between the regime and Bulgarianisation, and therefrom the incidents in the elections and Vance Mihajlova.

However, one would not be quite truthful not to mention something that plays into the hands of those who are afraid of repeated Serbianisation of Macedonia, its new dangerous rapprochement with Belgrade from the arms of which Macedonia freed itself by winning its independence. The star of the summit conference of prime ministers and presidents of seven countries of South-Eastern Europe held thanks to the “idea, initiative and organisation of president of the Republic of Macedonia Boris Trajkovski” (syntagm regularly used by Macedonian state TV) was the new Yugoslav president Vojislav Kostunica. Those who believe that there are no major ideological differences between Milosevic and Kostunica and that, in fact, the only difference is in the “soft” approach to the international community, submissiveness of new Yugoslav authorities to international pressure, think that the effects of Skopje summit conference will be an uncritical and even dangerous rapprochement with Belgrade. The fear of ethnic Albanian political parties is especially evident, not only because of the attitude of Kostunica towards Kosovo, but also because Serbophilia in Macedonia almost regularly relied on Albanophobia in the sense “together with the Serbs it will be easier for us to deal with the Albanians”.

In this general confusion, a few days ago a columnist of Dnevnik daily from Skopje Kim Mehmeti reminded the public of the referendum question which Macedonian citizens gave their answer to on September 8, 1991: “Are you in favour of independent and sovereign state of Macedonia with the right to enter future union of sovereign states of Yugoslavia?” This question at the referendum, which was boycotted by Macedonian Albanians because of its second part, in the context of all these developments on the one hand leaves open the danger that the second part of the question might become topical, and on the other it opens the problem of the political will of Macedonian population for the independent state, but it also expresses fear of the then regime of that will which is evident from the ambiguous formulation of the question in the referendum.

In the end let us go back to the personal stand of Stojan Andov in Forum: “That is why we need to stop and think and open the debate about what we have declared ourselves in favour of in the Constitution, and how and in what way we are burdened by the past which does not let us do what the citizens expect from their own independent state?”

AIM SKOPJE

Iso RUSI