DEMOCRACY CAN HARDLY BE SEEN IN THE MACEDONIAN MIRROR

The Counsellor to the Macedonian President Gjorgje Ivanov, the Professor of Constitutional Law Svetomir Shkarikj, as regards the events on 24 December expressed views that are completely different to those of his “employers”. The media, which survive from the state budget managed by VMRO-DPMNE, as expected, neither saw nor heard anything.

Ilir Ajdini

One surprising statement of a person who is formally a part of the ruling structure, and which is diametrically opposed to the views of that same structure, would attract full attention in every democratic country and would open a wide political debate; moreover because the conveyed view refers to the most relevant political issue in the country. That goes for the democratic, but also for the partly democratic countries. Only few would be surprised that this is not true of Macedonia…

Having into account that the public had little opportunities to be informed of the event we are talking about, we shall remind you in a nutshell:

The Counsellor to the Macedonian President Gjorgje Ivanov (there is no need to point out whose stances and actions are supported by the person who, according to the Constitution, should be president of all citizens in the country), the Professor of Constitutional Law Svetomir Shkarikj, stated that “the situation is ripe for early parliamentary elections from the moment when violence was used against the opposition MPs”.

From the numerous views that Shkarikj stated in the interview for 24 Vesti TV which are, to put it gently, pretty different from those of his “employers”, we will select only the following:

“It is unimaginable that the executive power will use force against the MPs, because in this manner it places itself above the legislature”; “Such example was only seen in the 17 century and now this 24 December will enter in the extensive history of the Constitutional Law”; “The same people that made the decision to remove the MPs, prior to reaching the decision, should have been ready for early parliamentary elections” etc.

In a normal media atmosphere, the statement of the president’s counsellor which is diametrically opposed to the president’s views (aside from the fact that the latter behaves as a spokesman and assistant to the ruling party), would be breaking news in every medium and main subject of analyses and debates at least in the next few days. Even if he was not a counsellor to the president of the VMRO supporters, his reputation as an eminent professor would have been enough, regardless if we agree or do not always agree with his views. However, apart from a few portals and a couple of televisions and printed media inclined towards the opposition (which, according to the opinion of the author of this text show the highest level of professionalism in this country), all other media neither saw nor heard this information.

Why do they act like that, why do they hold back information that is not very favourable to the government, as they held back the news about the devastating situation of this country regarding the freedom of speech according to the last report of Reporters Without Borders? The answer to this question is quite easy: you only need to look at the advertisements from which this media exist and survive. And, actually, we are all aware that the Government of RM is the biggest advertiser in this country.

The media in one country represent a mirror of the freedoms and rights of its citizens, of its democracy. In our mirror the democracy could hardly be seen.