Macedonia: Passing the Democracy Test
Saturday 29 August 2009By EU Reporter Correspondents
The presidential and municipal elections in the Republic of Macedonia were held on 22
The demand for free, fair and transparent elections is reasonable considering that the capacity to organize proper elections also implies the stability required to achieve the first Copenhagen criterion which demands “stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy and rule of law”. Furthermore, since the early parliamentary elections last year in June which were marked by irregularities, violence and intimidation in parts of the country (mainly in the predominantly ethnic Albanian areas) particular attention was paid to these elections.
In line with EU conditions, during the recent elections more importance was attached to their conduct and the election process itself rather than the actual results. In other words, the international community was less concerned with what party people voted for, and more concerned with how the country’s institutions operated during the election process. It was crucial that the country demonstrate its capability to organize free and fair elections once again and to overcome the obstacles that presented themselves in the 2008 elections.
Moreover, the election outcome was of less importance considering that there were almost no political players with an anti-EU or anti-West agenda. Euro-Atlantic integration has been, according to the OCSE/ODIHR a “goal shared by all the major political parties”.
So far, according to OCSE/ODIHR preliminary findings and conclusions, both rounds of the recent elections met most OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic elections. Furthermore, the OCSE/ODIHR report finds that all institutions acted impartially and in line with their competences, a finding which demonstrates the maturity of Macedonian institutions.
Following on from this preliminary assessment of the elections, it appears that after successful elections on 22 March and 5 April, Macedonian hopes of opening accession negotiations after almost 4 years of being a candidate country have been refreshed. It seems however that in recent months too much focus was placed on the elections, creating the perception amongst Macedonians that successful elections were the only remaining condition. While the conduct of recent elections has been a necessary condition for the EU to formally open accession negotiations, it is not the only one.
Indeed, the conduct of elections has been just one out of nine benchmarks/ key priorities that have been set by the Commission (and the Council of Ministers) in order to assess the preparedness of the country to formally begin accession negotiations.
Thus, from a formal point of view it seems that there is still some homework to be done in the upcoming months. Consequently, the Macedonian Government will have to focus on establishing a sustained record on the implementation of judiciary reforms and anti-corruption legislation, promotion of constructive and inclusive dialogue between all political parties, building professional civil administration as well as improving the general business environment and tackling unemployment.
Yet, having in mind the nature of the benchmarks and the country’s progress achieved so far, perhaps, the positive assessment of the recent elections should be taken as a sufficient condition to open accession negotiations as well. There are at least two reasons for the Commission to make a recommendation to the Council of Ministers for Macedonia to open accession negotiations.
Firstly, it seems that the nature of the benchmarks is a little ambiguous. Most of the key priorities/benchmarks are very vague, thus it could be quite difficult to assess whether the country is in compliance with the benchmarks or not. Most of them are process-based rather than outcome-based. In other words, it is hard to set appropriate indicators in order to measure their fulfillment because most of the benchmarks require sustainability and for trends to continue instead of precise outcomes.
Thus it seems that to a large extent, the fulfillment of the benchmarks could be a matter of the Commission’s discretion. The lack of clarity of the benchmarks as well as the room for discretion could undermine Commission’s credibility if it keeps the country stuck in one stage of the accession process for a long time. Indeed, the Commission has tried to clarify the benchmarks (for instance, by setting certain indicators or through direct communication with the Macedonian Government), but some scope for discretion still remains.
This means that any recommendation could be perceived as a political decision rather than a technical one. Any decision taken by the Commission has to therefore be grounded on clear and measurable indicators. The absence of such indicators should be sufficient for the country to open accession negotiations.
Secondly, regarding all benchmarks, the country has already made important steps in the direction of their fulfillment (especially regarding judiciary and police reform - EC Progress Report, 2008). In addition, the last Commission Progress Report has recognized that there is good progress in almost all chapters of the acquis - that is, the country’s ability to assume the obligations of membership. Hence, a commitment to accession has been shown by the Government in many different policy areas.
Thus, moving towards accession negotiations could only serve as a commitment device and make the initial efforts of the Government more sustainable. It should also provide an extra impetus for the Macedonian administration and reinvigorate the accession process. On the other hand, there is again a risk of eroding the Commission’s credibility and a threat that the next accession stage will be widely perceived as a moving target.
In the case of Macedonia, because of the name dispute with Greece, there is an additional risk of creating a perception that the Commission is aligning its preferences on the name issue with Greece (and the Council where Greece can exercise its veto right). This could further undermine the transformative impact of the benchmarks on Macedonian policies and institutions. Also, it could negatively influence all future election rounds as well as overall regional stability.
In any case, the Commission’s Progress Report in October will show which stance will be taken: a recommendation for moving towards accession negotiations or maintaining the status quo with the country being kept just as a candidate. There is however enough evidence that it should be the former rather than the latter, not least the positive assessment of the recent elections.
FROM THE SPRING 2009 PRINT EDITION
March and 5 April (the first and the second round respectively). The conduct of “free, fair and transparent elections that meet international standards” has been an essential condition (condition sine qua non) for Macedonia to advance in the EU accession process. If it is deemed to have passed this test, it will make the formal opening of accession negotiations that much more likely.