In the vast landscape of Macedonian political intrigues, where power changes as swiftly as the winds of Vardarec, one faction remains an enigma, lurking in the shadows of the political battlefield. Roma political parties, emerging from the depths of institutional ignorance, have played an unconventional role in the vibrant democratic tapestry of the nation. Over the span of three decades, democracy has borne witness to their ascent, their alliances, and their lofty pledges, yet their influence remains as elusive as a whisper in the Room of the Iron Throne. Led by self-proclaimed leaders, bereft of clear ideologies and visionary purpose, these parties have become mere footnotes in the chronicles of power, overshadowed by the tremendous cacophony of mainstream politics.
Politics, it is said, is a dance—a complex web of alliances and betrayals, where loyalty is as fickle as the shifting tides. In the realm of Roma political parties, this dance assumes a peculiar taste. Year after year, they have sought comfort in the embrace of mainstream parties, forging vassal coalitions that promise unity but deliver naught but mediocrity. Like mushrooms sprouting after a nocturnal rainfall, their numbers grew with each election. However, their power remained toothless, akin to a newborn dragon, and they became mere pawns in the grand game, their voices drowned amidst the clamor of their ostensible allies. These coalitions, fashioned with cunning expertise, often crumbled as swiftly as a marriage forsaken by love after the first night.
One would expect these self-proclaimed leaders to be valiant champions of their community, their voices resounding through the corridors of power. Alas, such expectations are met with resounding silence. These political figures, devoid of the fire that ignites true leadership, seem no more than fleeting shadows, lurking at the periphery of public discourse. Critical thinking, a weapon as sharp as a finely honed blade, appears to be a rare trait among these leaders. Their visions, akin to whispers from the old gods, are shrouded in ambiguity, devoid of substance. They tread the halls of power like aimless wanderers, seeking purpose, yet their goals remain unattainable, lost within the labyrinthine depths of political gamesmanship.
In the realm of politics, promises are as commonplace as the deceit born of cunning rhetoric. Roma political parties, it seems, are no strangers to this game of trickery. Their pledges dissipate into thin air, much like sand slipping through their grasp. The electorate, ever hopeful for change, finds solace only in the bitter embrace of disappointment. These parties, with their humble origins and lofty aspirations, have failed to meet the expectations of their constituents. Roads in Roma settlements remain unpaved, Roma students endure segregation in schools, while those in mainstream institutions languish at the back of the classroom. Bridges to a brighter future lie shattered, much like the dreams of a fallen knight. Roma, forsaken by society and abandoned by their self-appointed leaders, teeters on the brink of despair.
As the sun sets on Macedonia’s political landscape with each passing day, the shadows cast by Roma political parties lengthen, extending into the hearts of marginalized people. Their impotent vassal coalitions offer nothing but a mirage of false unity. Their muted presence in public debates leaves a void, a deafening silence that reverberates through the cries of an overlooked community. In this realm of unfulfilled promises and shattered dreams, Roma political parties stand as a stark testament to the fragility of democracy. The pursuit of power seems to sway their vision, rendering them impotent in the face of genuine transformation.
***
To be clear, I shall now write without metaphors. Roma political parties in Macedonia have always been an enigma to both the Roma and majority populations. Their ideological enigma has transformed over the years into a quiet and unnoticed mysticism in the public sphere, characterized by a failure to realize the interests of the Roma population and cheap opportunism in their alliances with SDSM and VMRO. I am reluctant to openly criticize our Roma parties because I understand the difficulties they face in organizing and mobilizing the Roma community, as well as the challenges of cooperating and building political partnerships with mainstream parties. Any public criticism makes them vulnerable and weaker in the eyes of their electorate and the broader public. Nevertheless, I must make an exception here due to their silence and passive inaction in response to the calls of the National Roma Platform for a collective approach to the collective interests of Roma in Macedonia. Furthermore, their silence in the public debate on the introduction of a single electoral unit for the upcoming parliamentary elections has compelled me, as I believe that the interests of the Roma population should be articulated in order to improve democracy in society. For some time now, I have been trying to find a publicly expressed opinion or stance, even from a Roma party, on this matter. Unfortunately, my attempts have been in vain. Moreover, Roma intellectuals and civil organizations are neither included nor invited to participate in public debates, thus completing the process of Roma marginalization in this society, economically, socially, culturally, and now politically as well. If the voice of Roma parties and intellectuals is not heard in these crucial processes of electoral model change, constitutional amendments, screening, and EU membership negotiations, every subsequent phase of political and civic participation will be rendered meaningless.
“I would play like that too” – as Igor Jambazov says – if I were in place of the majority parties because our political parties have always been stand-by players and waited for someone to have mercy by giving them space to play ten minutes at the end of the game. We had a few individuals who played from the very beginning of the game (in power), but unfortunately, they played without a ball or didn’t know how to play according to the dirty rules of the big games. Those who quickly learned to play against the rules of the game also quickly got exhausted due to a lack of fitness for manipulation and to some extent naive blindness from the undeservedly gained power in power. In order not to over-analyze past behavior and resonate with our political elites, I want to return to the topic and the reason why I am writing this text.
Our society has been discussing the introduction of one voting unit instead of the current six units. The introduction of a single voting unit in Macedonia, as opposed to the current six, could be a two-bladed knife in relation to the future of our democracy. Both for any public debate in our society and on this topic, comments are black and white, i.e., parties and “independent” experts are in favor of or against changes to the electoral model in the next parliamentary elections. This is a fairly long debate, primarily led by political parties, accompanied by political analysts and civic organizations, which lacks the critical attitude and proposals of the ordinary voter. This is also a difficult and infertile debate because of a political culture focused on the simple struggle for power and privilege that come with power. The political scene is always played by the “big 4 (2+2) parties”, while small, by number many, parties gravitate towards the “great rulers” in all possible coalition combinations with the left or right.
It is important for someone to consider the various arguments of smaller parties, including ethnic minority parties, regarding the potential benefits of this change. Smaller parties and ethnic minority parties are the loudest, believing that their small number of votes is important for forming a future ruling majority, so they want to take the opportunity to better position the next elections. However, they have different arguments for articulating a constituency. Some parties justify that change is needed to democratize the political system and give room for open lists for MPs, other parties insist on reserved seats for non-majority communities, and others propose a constituency without an electoral threshold to increase the proportional representation of parties in the Assembly, etc.
Major parties, however, which alternate in sitting in the seat of power, are not so interested in substantial changes to the electoral model, and depending on whether they are a position or opposition, make populist statements as a flirtation with smaller parties to increase coalition capacity. In fact, we must recognize that the major parties are very intrinsic and experienced in the three-decade leadership of this people, so it is very certain that they will not cut the branch they sit on, or more specifically have no motive to eradicate the roots of rule with the state through lies, fear, manipulation, and corruption.
Somewhere in the middle of these two extremes is the analysis of the Institute for Democracy – Societas Civilis – which claims that the current electoral model is one of the most proportional in Europe. In their analysis, the debate concerns several parameters of electoral law and is not only retained in the number of constituencies and how many parties will enter the Assembly but also considering the electoral threshold and the number of voters in the constituency combined with the d’Hondt formula, which in our case is very restrictive to smaller parties to enter the Assembly. The main point of this analysis reminds us that despite the good proportional representation of parties per capita, political parties represent the interests of parties and business elites more than citizens. Macedonian citizens should support a model in which their interests will be prioritized for elected MPs. The second important point is that each electoral model seeks to provide stable power in which it is desirable to have a smaller number of different parties. From the experience of Macedonian society so far, the second point or goal has little meaning because any stable government with a majority monopoly in the Assembly has been dictatorial and violent towards its citizens. Conversely, a narrow majority and lack of sufficiently stable and decisive power in power, such as the current one, also generate chaos in institutions, uncontrolled mass corruption at all levels of public life, and the disenfranchisement of the ordinary voter.
Occasionally, proposals and ideas for borrowing election models from the neighborhood and developed democracies are implemented, superficially assessing possible options for replicating them in our country. Roma in Macedonia should oppose borrowing models from other countries because each society has its own specifics in the regulation and development of democracy. In this opposition, all Roma parties and intellectuals should clearly point to the current abnormalities of the electoral model and propose a model they believe will improve Roma political participation.
First, the primary basis for each election model is the number of voters. In our case, the Roma electorate is scattered across the country and as such is subject to constant majorization, be it in one or six constituencies. Mathematics is clear and there is no room for political engineering of the Roma voting electorate. To have a fair and democratic contest, Roma political candidates need to compete with each other to win a majority of Roma votes. In the ethnically set electoral model, it is obvious that each ethnic community expects to receive votes from its community, meaning calculations are based on the number of voters according to census results.
Secondly, Roma and non-majority communities should vote in a constituency where each community will have an open list of voters, without an electoral threshold. The assembly should have reserved seats for non-majority communities according to their percentage of the last Census. This means that Roma would have 2 to 3 reserved seats in the Assembly and the open list of candidates would be independent of the interests of the major parties.
Third, the concentration of votes of non-majority communities in one constituency, including Roma, will over time bring new and quality politicians to the stage and a real democratic contest between the candidates of the non-majority communities. In the previous model, Roma and other smaller communities had no choice or opportunity to choose who was better, but simply had to vote for the only option, according to the dictate and interests of the major parties. This is nothing different from the political monopoly and practice of the previous political system.
Fourth, every citizen from any ethnic community has the choice to vote on a majority or minority list of candidates. This means that each citizen has the right to vote on only one list of candidates at the state level (one constituency). In our case, Roma will have the opportunity to choose their representatives in the Assembly, and depending on their election promises, they will have a mandate to be independent or have a post-election coalition with other parliamentary groups.
It is important to note that the political context of each country is unique, and the success or failure of a particular electoral model depends on many factors. Considering the specific circumstances and aspirations of Macedonia for fair representation and political stability, it would be crucial to analyze the potential benefits in accordance with our Roma interests, rights, and obligations as citizens of this country and regularly be part of the consultations with the relevant participants in order to adopt the most appropriate electoral system for the country.
May 2023
4RRR 