Tag Archives: opposition


Civil resistance: cohesion, growth, representation (part two)

The second part of this ad-hoc assembly engages different experiences of political organising and civil resistance against the ruling regime in Republic of Macedonia.

The call for this assembly is inspired by the mass protests in Macedonia that kicked off May 5, 2015. That day people rallied for justice and against police brutality. Protests persisted on each consecutive day and grew with demands for resignation of the entire government and criminal charges, building on a years of public outcry over the unjust and discriminating policies and actions by the Macedonian government. Citizens-activists and different organisations had already opened fronts of struggle demanding greater control by the people over institutions that politicians use to make decisions on their behalf. For years now, protests had been held against police brutality, urbanisation, pollution, in defense of students rights and for access to quality public education, demanding equality before public institutions, in the name of social justice and workers’ rights, against homophobia and heteronormative laws and for media freedom.

The goal of the second part of this assembly is to engage experiences that critically address questions about the growth of civil resistance, the cohesion and modes of representation (who speaks, on whose behalf and towards what were actions directed). In the first part we presented international experiences, while the second part zeroes in on civil resistance experiences in Macedonia. We ask, what has civil resistance been directed against and how has it build up, as it has been in the making?

The second part of this assembly presents four perspectives:

Assembly editors: Elena B. StavrevskaMila Shopova, and Anastas Vangeli

Photo: Nebojša Gelevski

The citizens in the midst of politics – old struggle for new values

Part of the ad-hoc assembly “Civil resistance: cohesion, growth, representation“. Author: Bojan Marichikj

The few massive student demonstrations and the free student zones at universities across Macedonia towards the end of 2014 and the beginning of 2015 encouraged multiple disparate groups of citizens (journalists, workers without permanent contracts, etc.) to organise protests occupying the streets as spaces of political activism. In this article I elaborate on the most massive form of civil resistance against the government in Macedonia and Gruevism as a model of governance, which emerged from this wave of activism – the coalition “The citizens for Macedonia”.

Why “The citizens for Macedonia”?

The publication of a series of so-called bombs by the opposition party SDSM confirmed the long-held fears and assumptions of the majority of civil activists and civil organisations. The recordings showed, namely, that the institutions have been hijacked by a small clique of power-holders, that the ruling parties control all branches of power (legislative, executive and judicial), that there is practically no single institution, independent body or a political process in which the citizens can place their trust or upon which they could have any influence.

The expected role of civil society in democratic societies is to be a corrective of government policies on behalf of the public, thereby not participating directly in political power struggles. This is the key distinction between the viewpoint of the civil society and that of the political parties, who realise the public, but also the particular interest of their ideological platform via the political and electoral process to ensure influence in the institutions of the representative democracy. However, in abnormal circumstances whereby civil organisations and activists are constant targets of demonisation, hate speech, institutional repression, and media lynching, it is impossible not to blur the delineation between political and party activism, at least temporarily.

The need for unification of the opposition front against Gruevski and his political clique arises from the impotence of any single political group (regardless of whether they fight for votes or influence on behalf of the public interest) to independently form a wide and successful front that would surpass the limits of their own activism hitherto, in conditions of total control over media, captured institutions, and orchestrated repression by the government. Since the Macedonian society is no longer a democratic one, and the government refuses to change its course, the last remaining option was to form a civil coalition of political parties in opposition led by SDSM and civil organisations and activist groups (as well as individual activists), which was launched in May 2015 under the name “The citizens for Macedonia” and issued a common declaration.

New values created by the struggle

The coalition “The citizens for Macedonia” enabled the unification of the most part of those smaller fronts against Gruevski and Gruevism as a concept into a large front that neither Gruevski nor the international community would be able to ignore anymore. Furthermore, the camp in front of the Government building became a symbol for endurance and resolution of the common struggle against the current regime. The presence of a significant number of citizens in this camp, that do not necessarily come only from the opposition parties, put pressure on Gruevski and his collaborators who now have to face the citizens’ revolt every day. This is not the only pressure point of revolt, but it is the only one that lasts for 24 hours a day on a single visible space.

Furthermore, it is a symbolic space which was held shut for civil protests from May 6th to May 17th, the period during which citizens protested every day following the publication of the recordings in which the government tried to hide details about the tragic murder of Martin Neshkoski in June 2011. With the reclaiming of this space from May 17th onwards, the government was forced to accept that the people will not accept the existence of “forbidden zones” limiting their right to protest and that the citizens’ revolt will be expressed every day just below the window of the man in power.

“The citizens for Macedonia” as a concept encouraged many who see themselves as “neutral”, “apolitical”, “undecided”, and yet at the same time extremely unsatisfied by the current government. In this sense, the concept showed that the confrontation with the clique in power goes beyond an ordinary inter-party struggle for power between VMRO-DPMNE and SDSM. This platform has shown that a fundamental clash is actually taking place – between the majority of citizens demanding democracy, freedom, and social justice on one side and Gruevski and his party and ruling elite on the other, who use anti-democratic methods and abuse power in order to stay in power.

The coalition “The citizens for Macedonia” gave birth to a new civil spirit of community that overcomes the usual ethnic, religious, gender, moral, ideological differences, and goes even beyond special interests politics. The decision to not display party flags at the massive civil protest is more than purely symbolic. It also proves the readiness to sacrifice the domination of political parties within the opposition camp and to open a forum for unified activism without any conditions or blackmailing. The camp also provided space for different people with the same goal to be on the same spot to learn from one another; it enabled communication between citizens from Skopje and other cities, people from different ethnic affiliations, people ready for open discussion and action that would contribute to the democratic process.

“The citizens for Macedonia” is the largest and the most powerful front with over 15 political parties and over 80 civil organisations or activist groups. This front is not, nor does it pretend to be the only one in the fight against Gruevism as a method of governance. The side fronts outside “The citizens for Macedonia” can only help us comprehend the multiplicity of the fight against the ruling regime in Macedonia.

One of the messages of “The citizens for Macedonia” is that the power of any future government has to be decreased and that conditions, support and motivation must be created for active, vocal and critical citizens. This means that every future government must give up use of the available repressive instruments against political opponents as well as its methods for quenching any criticism and civil activism via media, institutional or non-institutional interventions.

Lastly, the duration of this coalition is limited by the fall of Gruevski. The harder part of exterminating Gruevism as a method of ruling remains to be a common goal of all subjects in “The citizens for Macedonia”. However, that struggle will be led independently by each subject – we will act from our position of citizens that are self-organised to fight for the public interest at large without any aspirations to power, whereas the parties will fight in the political arena to realise their political platforms. This coalition will not be an obstacle for the civil organisations to criticise SDSM as a future ruling party, on the contrary. The civil society has an obligation to show that it does not give up on politics nor does it leave it only up to politicians to manage, and it will always be there to criticise and control those who hold power.

David versus Goliath

Part of the ad-hoc assembly “Civil resistance: cohesion, growth, representation“. Author: Jordan Šišovski

After May 17th, the resistance entered in a deep crisis. The protests deflated and the awaited turnaround did not happen. To be able to even consider the strategic course of action we first have to examine the identity of the resistance and the nature of its crisis.

The rally on May 17th only showed what has been evident for many for a long time: SDSM has neither strategy, nor vision, nor strength to cause a substantial change in the society. The long-awaited ‘bombs’ unfoundedly raised the expectations of a desired change, while at the same time the leadership of the party, of the coalition parties and of the coalition non-governmental organisations, united under the “Umbrella”, completely failed in their assessment of: (1) the strength and the determination of the regime, (2) their own forces and capacity, (3) the interest of the ‘international community’ in the democracy in the country, and (4) the trust of the people. The last and most important assessment error indicated that the people are fully aware of the extent of corruption of the elites and that having been continuous faced with choosing between two evils, they no longer intend to choose evil, even if it was the lesser one! The people chose resignation. The rally was announced as a pompous event with the pathetic “We are coming!” There were many people on the streets on the day of the event, but their expectations of change were deceived. SDSM showed they did not know why they took so many people to the street. In the days that followed, the uninspired project managers of the ‘Freedom camp’ managed to transform the false hope into apathy.

It is in light of this that we ought to consider the nature of the crisis in the resistance that showed great energy on May 5th and soon took the form of the #Protestiram movement. Even in the first days after May 5th, the identity problems within this movement were apparent. It was an ideologically incoherent body. On the one hand there were activists who gravitate towards SDSM and on the other, there were activists who tried to suppress their distrust of SDSM in the name of the struggle against the greater evil – the authoritarian regime. The main disadvantage of the movement was in the fundamental unsustainability of the idea of ​​burying all differences until the fall of the regime. It became evident that the differences were substantial and ideological. While some showed strong liberal and anti-authoritarian tendencies, the pro-SDSM group acted in quite an authoritarian fashion. The constant insistence on a complete and blind support of the SDSM leadership, the ‘you are either with us or against us’ logic, and the demonisation of everyone who did not give their wholehearted support to SDSM with the derogatory “neutrals” only went to show the authoritarian tendencies in the ranks of the pro-SDSM wing of the resistance.

With the pompous “We are coming!” on May 17th, the pro-SDSM wing was completely drawn into a false victorious euphoria resulting from the disastrous assessment of SDSM. The false sense of size and strength stemmed from wrong Hegelian assumption that the quantity by itself turns into quality. The impressive number of citizens on the streets was not a guarantee that they were also motivated for action. This was perfectly estimated by the security forces – while on May 5th, there were thousands of special forces, so called “turtles”, on the streets of Skopje, on May 17th and the period after the government was ‘kept safe’ by a ridiculously small number of policemen. The ‘coming’ actually meant replacing the political with a politically impotent spectacle. The massive rally with its gravity completely pulled much of the (pro-SDSM) activist core into the orbit of SDSM/GM. It got a false aura of triumphalism and before the regime had even fallen, they started with a vulturous tearing apart of the ‘pie’ of the projected power and a calculation of the projected contenders to the ‘throne’. This thwarted its last, desperate battle with the regime.


Moral. People have completely lost confidence in the political caste. They are not willing to invest themselves once again in replacing one evil with a lesser evil. ‘The internationals’ are not ready to risk a change of the status quo in Macedonia. The regime shows a high degree of rational self-interest, flexibility and power to remain in place at all costs, while completely lacking morality, responsibility, and interest in the future of the country. SDSM and the ‘Citizens for Macedonia’ coalition show a complete absence of strategy, vision, and power to change both themselves and the society. This is also evident in the Przino agreement of July 15th, which is a mere technical agreement on the division of power between the coalition partners. In it, there is not even a mention of the values ​​such as freedom, democracy, justice! It follows that all progressive and liberal forces in the society should prepare for a long David-against-Goliath battle. SDSM is a futile political apolitical entity that is neither a useful ally, nor a worthy opponent. The struggle against the regime is not a struggle against a person or a group. It is a struggle agains two-decade long authoritarian and reactionary tendencies. This devaluation should be resisted by a force with clear liberal and progressive values. Only by practicing radical liberty, democracy, and transparency of the actions can the rigid authoritarian logic of the political caste be ruffled. It is necessary to open new venues of resistance, to politicise the quiet majority, and encourage grassroots and one’s own resistance.

We will need mad hope and faith in the power of our weakness!

We shall overcome!