By: Nikica Kerubin
This is the question that some civil society organizations (from the non-governmental sector), grandly named as “institutes”, should ask in one of their surveys, as they have been intensively measuring public opinion for years. This question, like many others related to the obligations of the state – such as international agreements (the Ohrid Agreement, the Prespa Agreement, and the Agreement with Bulgaria) – is often presented as a subjective choice, based on the tastes and desires of the consumers.
Like the latest research, commissioned by a media outlet, which carries the same “manipulative flavor” – should the new Government accept the inclusion of Bulgarians in the Constitution under the current conditions, or should it not accept it, even at the cost of delaying the start of negotiations with the European Union – the public opinion research commissioned by the “Detector” program, conducted by the Institute for Political Research with a representative sample – published in Fokus.
It is on the same level as the question, “should citizens accept to pay taxes, utility bills, and services?” or the previously mentioned question, “should the Government accept to respect the laws and the Constitution?” Does it sound extreme and tendentious, irrational and suggestive? Yes, what exactly is the difference between these two questions and the one from the survey that “triumphs” with the conclusion (and the most significant media title): “82% of Macedonians and 11.3% of Albanians are against Bulgarians in the Constitution.” The same obligation, but only one (Bulgarians in the Constitution) is treated as a choice.
What the government does not have at all is the option of “whether or not it should accept the inclusion of Bulgarians in the Constitution”, but it has an obligation to do so (constitutional amendments), which is at the level of completely misleading those surveyed, just like the delusion that the “Government” is the one that “puts Bulgarians in the Constitution,” and not the Parliament, which is responsible for this obligation of the state – so, for any authority, whether new or old government, it doesn’t matter.
Instead of citizens dealing with false dilemmas and legally unfounded questions, which have no correlation with reality, it would be better if they were reminded of the state’s obligations and the reasons why these obligations have not been fully fulfilled on our part. And when the Ohrid Framework Agreement is being intensively re-examined, discredited, and compromised, it should be reminded that this was the fundamental reason why, in 2005, the EU granted candidate status to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (us, as a state back then), as a temporary reference due to the continuous rejection by the party elites (and others) to fulfill the obligations of the Interim Agreement under the auspices of the UN Security Council, for the name dispute with Greece; and the EU told us:
“The ability to undertake the obligations of membership, including adherence to the goals of political, economic, and monetary union.” – EU Council, 2005.
With that “ability to undertake obligations,” we ourselves agreed to send the request for obtaining candidate status in 2004, which we adopted in Parliament in 2005, and we reiterated it in 2007, in the legislative body, the highest constitutional authority, with the words:
“(Republic of Macedonia) Confirms its strong determination to take all the necessary political steps and actions required to open negotiations for EU membership” – Parliament of the Republic of (North) Macedonia, Resolution adopted on November 27, 2007.
If the state has the obligation approved by Parliament for “its strong determination to undertake all necessary political steps and actions required to open negotiations for EU membership,” through awareness and the obligation for “the ability to undertake membership obligations” given by the EU, as well as to whom, should our “non-governmental” organizations, institutes, and public opinion research centers direct the question of “Bulgarians in the Constitution”? To the citizens or to the authorities – the Government, Parliament, the President?
Because with the “changing of theses,” the “game with words,” the “hiding behind the citizens’ curtain” and antagonizing the strategic agreements for the survival of a functional state, based on the rule of law – respecting and implementing international agreements that are above national law and integrated into it – the obligation and responsibility cannot be avoided. The obligation for the state to effectively start negotiations with the EU and the responsibility for why this obligation has been avoided and continues to be avoided since 2005. 20 years of status quo, is it a good anniversary for the real questions? What does perception say, is it time for reality?
