Social democracy in Macedonia is a unique
example of how an internationalist movement can be defined by differing values,
policies, organizational features, experiences and legacies because it is set
within the boundaries of one state. The branches do travel far and wide. Yet,
in order to be defined as social democracy, certain identifiers are needed to
reaffirm its identity. According to Coppieters and Deschouwer, the movement is
meant to encompass the wider organized working class, but the focus of the
movement in Macedonia is the SDUM. Ideologically, the social democratic family has
a variety of branches, with the Socialist International conferring recognition
through membership, which the SDUM has; but the application of policies spanning
from the transition to the present day have appeared to have left the SDUM
ideologically incoherent. So defining social democracy as a movement and
ideology has proved complicated because the analytical tools of comparison have
been unfairly weighted to the Western experience. So other, regionally focused
and historically relevant markers are required.
By utilizing Bozoki and Ishiyama’s
typologies to identify strategies that the successor parties adopted, one can
clearly see that the SDUM still fit the modernization/social democratic model
as they have reformed and are non-transmuted. However, this tool is of its
time, and now the focus should look beyond post-communist strategies and
towards ‘social democratization’. However, again the problem of comparison
emerges. Progressive currents within the party are recognized and applauded by
non-SDUM observers, yet they look to Europe for inspiration. Some do recognize
that processes and ideas may not apply to Macedonia, therefore look to those
whom they have shared a recent history with. These links are crucial for this
process to occur at a pace which is comfortable for the party, both the
leadership and members, to accept.
However, voters still view the SDUM as the
shadow of the communist party, for better or worse. The ‘paternal communism’
characterization of the SDUM by Kitschelt may still have degrees of similarity
in regards to the centralization of internal party power, electoral support
levels, its present attempt at ideological cohesiveness and undercurrents of
clientelistic links. But ‘social democratization’ will alter this and is in
part thanks to the efforts of the Progres Institut and Friedrich Ebert
Stiftung. Additionally, the prospects of politicians and exogenous shocks, such
as electoral defeat, may be the reasons why reform is taking place because
debates can now occur. This is evident in reforms to the structure of the party
and internal party democracy enacted by Radmila Sekerinska. Policy councils,
input from academics and businesses, and an altered campaigning focus has
allowed the party to modernize to appeal to a wider pool of people. However a
disengaged membership, indirect democratic mechanisms and no strategic attempt
to recruit members of ethnic minorities offset positive steps such as quotas
for women and young members to be candidates.
The legacies of nation-building and state
formation also have their relevance today. The rapid development of Macedonian
national identity, vis-à-vis external threats, by SFRY after World War II
accelerated the ethnic differentiation in the newly formed republic. This
conforms to Gellner, Hobsbawm and Anderson’s ideas of the state creating the
nation. Externally, relations with neighbouring sister parties suffered due to
clashes over shared historical narratives, as Roudometof and Danforth mention;
and internally clashes appeared in the early debates on citizenship and the
constitution, and continue today with the creation of monuments and buildings
to reaffirm Macedonian national identity.
Democratization also has its legacies.
Parrott’s definition of democracy provides ample flexibility in its application
in Macedonia, even if it sought not to compare democratization processes in
areas of different experiences. The operation of consociational democracy, kept
alive by an electoral system of proportional representation and a party system
that reifies the mono-ethnicity of political parties (including the SDUM),
institutionalizes a ‘separate, but equal’ situation in the political functioning
of the system. However, as Lijphart mentions, the intent is to provide
stability and this is what some of my interviewees mentioned. This can further
highlight the inclusion/exclusion nature of ethnic division that Horowitz
assigns to democracy. However, any future attempts to move away from this
ethnic party system to an ideological one is hampered on the one side by
possible electoral suicide should the SDUM practice multi-ethnic
electioneering, and on the other by the straight-jacketed electoral system that
fixes voting to regions with ethnic concentrations. The impact is thus felt on
the attitudes of those within the SDUM who idealistically want a multi-ethnic
Macedonia but remain pessimistic about its eventuality. However, limitations
are expressed by the incomprehension of accepting defeat in a democratic
system, and the limits of civil society to sustain itself and expand
considerably.
Fundamentally, as Waller and Coppieters
stated, it is unfair to assess the nature of social democracy in Macedonia with
that of the West, or even with that of its regional neighbours or the states of
the former Yugoslavia. To compare the evolution of a political tradition that
in the West is one hundred and fifty years on from its inception, to one barely
twenty years on its journey is to undermine the progress made by those new
movements. As Kitschelt wrote, the causal chain of how legacies can shape the
present originated in the era of World War I. The nature of the precommunist
regime, the evolution of the communist regimes within states, the nature of
transition, along with the early transformation of the communist successor
parties, all led to the different trajectories of these parties. But I add to
this with two points. Since independence, new factors have made these
trajectories even more divergent such as Kosovo, internal ethnic conflict, the
rise of new leaders and a change in international discourses related to the
global economy. But also nation building prior to, and the creation of the
state after, World War II, provided alternative legacies that impress upon the
movement today.
Social democracy in Macedonia therefore
should, and must, only be judged within the widest possible parameters set for
the social democratic family that all other movements across the world and over
time have allowed themselves to navigate within.
No comments:
Post a Comment