Failing to be Accountable; Failing to Meet the Benchmark: Macedonia’s Judicial Reforms

EnlargeEU Newsletter
August 2009
Filip Taseski - Residential intern

Failing to be Accountable; Failing to Meet the Benchmark: Macedonia’s Judicial Reforms

The reforms of the judicial system in Macedonia are crucial requirement for the start of the accession negotiations with the European Union (EU). This newsletter comments on the actual situation in this sector prior the 2009 EC progress report.

Brief Overview of Reform

The authorities in Macedonia continued with the reforms in the judicial system after the 2008 EU progress report was published. On August 5th 2009 in the daily newspapers the Government published a statement for its activities in this area for the pastyear. According to this, 15 new laws have been passed or are in a procedure to be passed that refer to the judicial system, like the new law on Court Service, Law for Lobbying, Law for Management of Confiscated Property, Law for the Public Defender, Law on the Financing of Political Parties etc. In respect to harmonization of the existing laws with the European legislation the country had showed significant progress.vMoreover, the country has continued with itsvefforts to enhance the institutional capacity of the judiciary. New institutions have been set to ensure more efficient due process of law. A new court of Appeals has started to function in Gostivar, new specialized Public Prosecutor was created to deal with corruption and organized crime, the new Administrative Court has been fully functional and ten graduates from the Academy for Judges and Prosecutors have been appointed to public prosecutors. The modernization process of the courts continued and reconstruction of the courts’ buildings and equipping the courts has been finished in Prilep, Tetovo, Veles, Strumica nd Ohrid. This project was conducted
with the help of the World Bank. Additionally the changes in the Law of Execution, the Law on Mediation and the decision of the Ministry of Justice to lower court taxes
and offer free court services to members of the lowest social layers improved the access to justice.
However, biggest defficiency in the Macedonian judicial branch remains the lack of human capital management. Although significant number of training programs for judges were conducted and the Academy is functional, still hiring and promotion of court servants (and the overall administration) is problematic.
Employments and rewards on political basis still occur. The Government is expected to
pass legislation dealing with this matter in mid September.
Another problematic area is the slowness of the judicial procedure. In
Novermber 2008 the analysis showed that there are 10 500 cases stuck in the system
and some of these cases are decades old. A month ago, the Minister of Justice stated that all judges that have old cases will face penalties. However, no judge faced penalty and the Judicial Council concluded that the judges perform their
duties in good faith.

Interference of the Executive Brach into the Work of the Judiciary?

Independence and impartiality are seen as areas challenging to secure in the Macedonian courts. Several events indicated problematic actions of the executive branch that could be seen as direct influence on the judiciary. Transparency Macedonia, local NGO focused on corruption, noted in its monthly report that the government violated Article 64 of the Law on Judicial Council. According to
their report “the Government reviewed the 2008 Annual Report of the Judicial Council’s activities at a session held on 25 April 2009, while the issuing Opinion adopted at the meeting was dully sent to the President of the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia.” According to the existing law, the Government should not review the Annual Report of the Judicial Council and adopt opinions based on the report. The decision of the Prime Minister of Macedonia to call the president of the Appeal Court, Mr. Jordan Mitrinovski, to discuss the reforms (as pointed in the statement of the president of the court) is a sign of a direct attempt of the executive branch to influence the judicial system. The Government response to these accusations was that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the ongoing judicial
reforms.

Conclusion

The overall conclusion contains better‐sweet remarks for the judicial reforms in Macedonia. The country successfully progressed in adoption of new legislation and invested a lot in institutional capacity. However, the judicial branch is still under tremendous political influence and faces severe corruption allegations.
Another problematic part remains the absence of an efficient human resources system
that will select, discharge and penalize judges, prosecutors and defenders etc on a merit base. As consequence, the reforms introduced fail to produce full independence and fail to hold accountable those who work in the system. Thus, as the Progress Report of the EU deadline is approaching it is more evident that the report will not contain more positive judgment of the judicial system than the one contained in the 2008 Progress Report. The reforms continued, but the judicial system is still inefficient and not fully independent.

Anderson and Cheryl W. Gray (Transforming Judicial Systems in Europe and Central Asia 2007) state that the principle issue is not ensuring greater judicial independence(although de jure might exist, but de facto may not), but to ensure judicial accountability, given the ne found independence.

Thomas Carothers, Promoting the Rule of Law Abroad: In Search of Knowledge, stated that the rule of law promises to move countries past the first, relatively easy phase of political and economic liberalization to a deeper level of reform.

Diversify, Supply and Secure: Towards energy stability in Macedonia?

EnlargeEU Newsletter Analytica, Thinking Laboratory | July 2009

"What are the priorities of Macedonia for the
development of the energy sector in the next 10
years? Does the new energy strategy secure the
Macedonian energy stability in the regional
environment? Is there an energy policy that
encompasses the energy supply and the energy
security, as feature of a foreign policy? these
are few questions that should be priorities in the
new Energy Strategy."

"In the energy supply three types of states are
important: energy producers, energy consumers
and energy transit states. When it comes to the
security of energy supply, as a small, landlocked
country Macedonia needs a transit relationship with
its wider neighbourhood much more than countries that
have access to sea waters."

At present the interest of the institutions and stake‐holders in Macedonia is focused on the stabilization of the domestic market of energy, which is caught in the web of domestic turmoil, like the dispute between ELEM and EVN, the changes of the Law on Energy, etc. At the same time the Ministry of Economy, together with MANU, has drafted new Energy strategy for the development of the energy sector in Macedonia until 2020. However, neither the draft strategy, nor the energy community in Macedonia have brought up the issue of the MacedonianIn the region of Southeast Europe (SEE) the new energy paradigm is being built around two major transit routes for natural gas – the Nabucco pipeline and the South Stream. The Nabucco pipeline is the EU answer to the increased energy dependence on Russia’s gas sources, diversification of transit routes, and the new geopolitical chessboard in the Middle East, the Caspian Sea and Russia. It has received an important boost with the signing of an inter‐governmental transit agreement between Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Austria at the beginning of this July. On the other side South Stream, the Russian answer to the EU energy expansion, has already secured its support from the Balkan countries Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece, as transit countries. The outcome of these respective projects, therefore, will have far‐reaching implications both for Europe's long‐term energy security and for the strategic balance of power and influence in the Balkans. Having a central place at “the heart” of the Balkan Peninsula and the geopolitically important region of SEE, Macedonia has not managed to secure its place on the EU map of diversified energy sources, as a transit route for the natural gas flows from the East. In the past six months Macedonia has been shaping its energy future on the basis of the new Strategy for the development of the energy sector until 2020. When it comes to the market of natural gas, the Draft Energy
Strategy sees an increase of the consumption of natural gas up to 75% by 2020 in the industry and 61% in households. However, at the same time the Draft Energy Strategy understates the potential to develop the gas distribution and supply system. If all of its recommended gas projects become operational ‐ New CHP thermal power stations, Gas pipeline: Klecovce–Veles–Stip–Negotino and Negotino TPP, Gas pipeline and gas distribution in Tetovo, Gas ring around Skopje ‐ it is clear that the current capacity of the transmission pipeline of 800mcm will not be able to satisfy the increased demand for natural gas in the country. Therefore, it is the right time for the government to start considering other options to diversify country’s gas sources. Besides considering the Energy Community Gas Ring as the best option for gas supply from diverse gas sources, the Draft Energy Strategy should offer supplementary long term perspective for development of new connections to the planned gas pipelines of the SEE region. Incorporating EU energy policy objectives of competitiveness, sustainable development and security of supply, the creators of the energy strategy failed to frame Macedonian energy policy in the regional and international energy environment. Thus, the country once again is missing the opportunity to be a factor for the transit routes of the natural gas and to gain geopolitical importance in the new constellation of energy powers in the Eurasian region. However, the momentum is still not lost and the government can secure the gas supply by: prioritizing the natural gas as energy source in the country and encouraging the development of the gas market, and by more vigorous energy diplomacy for advantageous gas supply both with Russia and with the export countries of the Caspian region.

Civil Society in Macedonia - Why Values Matter…

EnlargeEU Newsletter
Analytica
June 2009



The international and national non‐governmental organizations present in Macedonia pride themselves on the positive impact they have on Macedonian society. In defense of the importance of the work these organizations are doing they refer to theories that attribute a very positive role to civil society organizations. Civil society is often seen as the ‘cure‐all’ for many of society’s problems and more specifically for the well functioning of it’s democratic institutions.
It was the French historian and political writer Alexis de Tocqueville that ‘discovered’ the positive works of civil society on his trip to the United States of America in 1831¹. What he encountered was a flourishing civil society in which every social, political, economical, religious and ideological faction was represented. He spoke of the organizations in this civil society as “schools of democracy” referring to the positive effects these organizations had on their members ability to self‐organize to solve the problems in their community and, by doing so, to be better able to judge the effectiveness of politicians in dealing with problems on the bigger scale.

With his ’Making democracy work, civic traditions in modern Italy’ the contemporary author Robert Putnam points to the stark difference between the performance of regional governments in the north of Italy and the south of Italy which he attributes to the presence of a flourishing civil society in the north and the lack of civil society organizations in the south². The roots for the positive effects of civil society on democracy lies in, what Putnam calls, ‘bonding‐‘ and ‘bridging social capital’; with bonding social capital referring to intra‐group social ties and values like trust and friendship and bridging social capital revering to the social ties, the presence of trust and the willingness to cooperate between individuals from different ethnic‐ and socio‐ economic backgrounds.

The main problem with applying these popular theories of civil society and democracy to the Macedonian case is that there is no flourishing civil society in Macedonia³. The civil society like organizations present in Yugoslavia were very much intermingled with the communist regime and after the fall of communism civil society in Macedonia did not come to resemble the civil societies characteristic of the countries in Western Europe and the United States⁴.

Furthermore, most of the non governmental organizations present in Macedonia are not actually ‘grass rooted’ in society⁵. An often heard critique on Macedonian non governmental organizations is that they stop doing what they claim to do out of passion and commitment to solving the problems the moment the international donors close the money‐taps.

The authors Chambers and Kopstein mention that Putnam’s one‐sided positive view of the democratic effects of civil society stems from the fact that he compares the positive effects of the participation of citizens in the civil society with the negative effects of their non‐participation. Putnam’s civil society has to counter a society in which citizens are apathetic and threaten to lapse into anonymity⁶. But as Chambers and Kopstein write “sometimes the cure is worse than the disease”⁷ and unlike Putnam they focus on the ideological character of organizations in the civil society and on the values that these organizations promote to determine whether they have a positive or negative impact on democracy.

While the civil society of Macedonia is underdeveloped and the international and Macedonian non‐governmental organizations are not rooted in society we see that almost all of the latter adhere to, and are indeed inspired by, values of democracy and human rights. There are those organizations that fight poverty or strive for the rights of underprivileged minorities and those that are involved in ‘making democracy work’ in an even more direct way by for example providing trainings to local politicians or analyzing government policy.
And what’s more, many organizations in Macedonia focus on improving citizens’ capacities to actively participate in the newly decentralized democratic system and in society as a whole (in which endeavor the promotion of positive values also plays a vital role). And thus there is room to be hopeful for a civil society in Macedonia as Tocqueville and Putnam would (have) like(d) to see...

The Name Dispute: an American Perspective

EnlargeEU Newsletter
Analytica, Thinking Laboratory
May 2009

By Nina Stroempl, Residential Intern


The name dispute between Macedonia and Greece has recently come up in US politics. The United States has urged both nations to work together to find a solution. But it is not so simple even in the US.
The name dispute is what caused Greece to block Macedonia’s NATO entry and threatens to block EU accession as well. Therefore many in the US feel this issue needs to be resolved as soon as possible.
Earlier this month 15 members of the US Congress sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and urged a speedy resolution. These members of Congress fully support Macedonia, and even called Macedonia on of the United States’ “most staunch allies and trusted partners”.
There are also members of Congress who tend to sympathize with Greece, however. 19 Members of the US Congress recently proposed a resolution to the name dispute all the while criticizing Skopje for “Anti-Greek rhetoric” that is damaging relations with Greece.
The Greek American community has spoken about the issue as well. They recently wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to reconsider the US policy of recognizing Macedonia by its constitutional name. Around 200 lecturers from 11 countries took part in writing this letter.
This letter is quoted as saying "We call upon you, Mr. President, to help - in whatever ways you deem appropriate - the government in Skopje to understand that it cannot build a national identity at the expense of historic truth,” and later states "We believe that this silliness has gone too far, and that the U.S.A. has no business in supporting the subversion of history."
On May 22, 2009 Hillary Clinton received an award from the Greek American Community and was asked about the name dispute. She reiterated the US stance that a solution that is acceptable to both parties needs to be found. She also said that the administration is very committed to this issue which was picked up early on.
"Obviously, this has to be resolved by the parties themselves, but we are urging that resolution. We think it is in everyone’s best interest. As you said, it would open the way for movement toward another nation joining the European Union, which we think promotes stability in the region, so we are very committed to doing what the United States can to facilitate that," she said.
Concluding Thoughts:
It seems Greece holds all the trump cards in this issue, leaving Macedonia with very little bargaining power. It looks like Macedonia will have to make more concessions than Greece, and is left with the choice of preserving its name (and many feel this is core to its identity) or gaining members to NATO and the EU. Macedonia says it is ready to compromise. Yet, the huge statue of Alexander the Great that the government plans to erect in Skopje’s main square does not seem to send that message. That,
however, is another issue.
Sources: The Sofia Echo, Makfax, Mina, Focus
EnlargeEU Newsletter is also available at Analytica’s blog: www.analyticamk.blogspot.com