The frequent shifts of parties in power, coalition formations, and individuals moving between political affiliations are not merely signs of a lack of social capital—they also point to a deeper moral crisis in politics.
By Xhelal Neziri
When we visit the green market, three common types of fraud raise our caution. First, there’s cheating with the scale—some sellers try to charge more than the actual weight of the goods. Second, deception in quality—among fresh fruits and vegetables, they mix in a few rotten ones. Third, miscalculations—when a “mistake” conveniently adds an extra zero to the total bill. This lack of trust between sellers and buyers harms the market as a whole, driving people toward supermarkets, where produce may be more expensive and less fresh, but the fear of being cheated is much lower.
In many ways, recent developments in ethnic Albanian politics in North Macedonia mirror this marketplace. The race to attract more “buyers” has produced so much deception that restoring trust now seems nearly impossible. Instant coalitions, ideological vacuums, the normalization of clientelism, business-parties, and the fetishization of power as an end in itself (rather than a means to serve public interest) have eroded citizens’ trust in political institutions and have demonized political parties altogether.
This erosion of trust—whether in the market or in politics—weakens society’s ability to drive positive change or achieve shared goals in a neighborhood, city, or country. American scholar Robert Putnam calls this trust “social capital.” As early as the 1960s, he warned that social capital was steadily declining in the United States, meaning that people were gradually losing the desire, satisfaction, and even the conditions necessary to pursue common objectives. According to Putnam, when social capital is low, people lose the capacity to come together and cooperate—even to solve basic problems in their communities. This decline in trust also drains a society’s emotional energy, creating frustration and disconnection. Putnam argues that social capital is essential to the functioning of societies, significantly influencing economic development, political participation, and overall well-being.
French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu categorized capital into four types: economic, cultural, social, and symbolic. Unlike Putnam, who views social capital as a public good, Bourdieu defines it as an individual resource—shaped by one’s social position and status. He described social capital as a real or potential asset accumulated through access to “more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.”
American sociologist James Coleman also linked social capital to the structure of relationships among people. But whereas Bourdieu focuses on power and inequality, Coleman sees social capital as a public resource that benefits all—regardless of who invests in building networks. He offers the example of a neighborhood forming a watch group to reduce crime. Even those who don’t participate directly still benefit from the improved safety.
A lack of social capital in the marketplace affects both sellers and buyers economically. In politics, however, it jeopardizes the entire future of a society—regardless of whether individuals are directly involved in political life. These political power games, shifting alliances, and opportunistic moves aren’t just signs of depleted social capital—they reflect a profound moral decline. Blinded by the pursuit of personal gain at the expense of the public good, political actors are locked in a ruthless race to seize the biggest share of power after each election.
Many of us remember a time when older generations gave to social causes without expecting anything in return. Back then, social capital—the trust among group members—was so strong that economic capital served only as a tool to realize shared ideas. Their work benefited not just themselves, but society as a whole. Collective rewards may have been modest, but mutual trust, belief in a common goal, and a shared will to create positive change were the driving forces.
Rebuilding that trust—restoring this vital social capital—will require far more time, intellectual engagement, and political will than the two decades it took to destroy it.
