Macedonia & Greece: Name Issue

[Mastika]

Mastika,

It sounds like you attended the same politics 101 classes as Buktop. Gruevski has absolutely no authority (constitutional or otherwise) to negotiate the sovereignty of the Macedonian people.

Gruevski is not negotiating the "the sovereignty of the Macedonian people", rather he is 'negotiating' the name of the Republic of Macedonia on behalf of the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia. The fact that he was elected by the majority of the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, also shows that he does have some "otherwise" authority, be it social and/or political, or at least that is how it is supposed to work in a free democracy.

[Vangelovski]

Mastika,

It is our sovereign decision to name ourselves - that means we alone decide what the name of our state will be. Once you negotiate something that lies within our sovereign domain, you are effectively negotiating our sovereingty.

Election by a majority does not give him the authority to do whatever he pleases - rather in a republic (which Macedonia claims to be) he can only do what he has been specifically authorised to do.

This has been discussed over and over again on this forum - please do a search and read up on it.

[Prolet]

Branko Crvenkovski didnt think twice about changing our name to FYROM, he said if he comes to power he will change our name right away with no referendum or anything.

Gruevski can change our name if he wants to and he can do it legally aswell, he's had the chance on more the one occasion to do so and he hasnt done it. Why go into these scare mongering tactics for?

[aleksandrov]

The question was has he accepted a name change, of course he hasn't. ...

The acceptance of the Interim Accord, which accepts the objectionability of the name Repubic of Macedonia and requires negotiations for a new name (at least for 'international' use), in itself amounts to accepting a name change. The only thing left to decide is a mutually acceptable (between Greece and FYROM) new name.

[aleksandrov]

... Do either of you guys have anything to corroborate the suggestion that Gruevski was ready to accept Macedonia (Skopje) at Bucharest, and for what purpose (bilateral, international, etc)?

The fact that the Government went into Bucharest ready to adopt a name with a geographic qualifier for use within NATO (international organizations), and in fact put MPs on notice of the possibility of an urgent session of Parliament to ratify the change if NATO agreed to admit us under it, has been extensively documented in debates on Maknews. I just don't have the time to go over all of that again here, especially since I don't see what it will change. The Government's preparedness to change the name at least for use within international organizations is evidenced by its recognition of the Interim Accord (which already gives us an imposed name for use in international organizations, which is to be replaced by something else through negotiation with Greece) and participation in the negotiations.

[aleksandrov]

Who is negotiating identity?! ... Should an agreement arise (in regards to anything not strictly the name), then the PM will be the one present it to the Macedonian parliament or people via referendum (depending on the change). ...

What exactly would the PM take to a referendum (for a rubber stamp) if not an identity he has negotiated or reached agreement on?

[aleksandrov]

Gruevski is not negotiating the "the sovereignty of the Macedonian people", rather he is 'negotiating' the name of the Republic of Macedonia on behalf of the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia. The fact that he was elected by the majority of the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, also shows that he does have some "otherwise" authority, be it social and/or political, or at least that is how it is supposed to work in a free democracy.

1. What does the concept of SOVEREIGNTY of the Republic of Macedonia, or of the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, mean to you?

2. Do you see any human rights issues in these negotiations?

3. Are you aware that the whole concept of human rights (designed for the purpose of protecting individuals and minorities from the power of the state or the tyranny of the majority) is based on the presumption that a majority does not have the right to take away or trade away the rights of individuals or minorities?

4. Do you think that any referendum at which people vote under duress is an expression of the FREE will of the citizens?

[Buktop]

I believe what Mastika is saying is that agreements and negotiations can be reached by the elected officials but must be ratified by the representatives of the parliament, which in turn are the representatives of the citizens. That is what the parliament is for, and if somehow a law or decision is pushed through parliament that does not agree with the general sentiments of the citizens, then we have a severe failure of government. Either way, too much emphasis is placed on the will of the president, and not enough is placed on the responsibilities of the parliamentarians, and as we all know, the parliament in Macedonia is a sham, a waste of space, and rank with corruption.

Just so we are all clear on what the Parliamentary System is, a parliamentary system is a system of government in which the ministers of the executive branch are drawn from the legislature and are accountable to that body, such that the executive and legislative branches are intertwined. In such a system, the head of government is both de facto chief executive and chief legislator.

[aleksandrov]

I believe what Mastika is saying is that agreements and negotiations can be reached by the elected officials ...

There is no need to 'believe' when you can just read what he is actually saying.

He disputed the statement that the Government is negotiating the Macedonian identity by rhetorically asking "Who is negotiating identity?" He then contradicted himself by saying that the Government is negotiating it, but it will have to be ratified at referendum.

As far as the presumed legitimacy of the proposed referendum is concerned, please just let him answer my clear and direct questions. You are welcome to answer them directly too, if you wish.

[aleksandrov]

... Just so we are all clear on what the Parliamentary System is, a parliamentary system is a system of government in which the ministers of the executive branch are drawn from the legislature and are accountable to that body,

That may be the case in some parliamentary systems, like the Westminster system, but not in Macedonia's system. The Prime Minister and other ministers in Macedonia are not drawn from the legislature and are not members of the legislature. In fact, you can't be a minister if you are a member of the legislature at the same time. Ministers are drawn from outside the legislature, but are elected by the legislature.

In such a system, the head of government is both de facto chief executive and chief legislator.

Even in parliamentary systems like Westminster, where the ministers are members of Parliament, the PM is not a chief legislator. There is no such thing as a chief legislator (unless you are using that term loosely to describe the Speaker/Chairperson of the parliament), because all members of the legislature have equal legislative powers and the parliament is supreme in its legislative powers. This is not the case with the executive arm of government, where specified Government powers can and are delegated to the Prime Minister and other ministers.

Are you aware of the separation of powers concept?

[DedoAleko]

All you need to do is a little review,of what DPMNE has done these past few years about the Makedonckite raboti.
I am well aware that they are far from perfect, but The Macedonian nation is stronger, more self-aware,more united than ever, and that is a FACT!
We mustn't let anything stand on our way and our goal-Free and Prosperous Macedonia.
Macedonia above anything!

[makedonche]

All you need to do is a little review,of what DPMNE has done these past few years about the Makedonckite raboti.
I am well aware that they are far from perfect, but The Macedonian nation is stronger, more self-aware,more united than ever, and that is a FACT!
We mustn't let anything stand on our way and our goal-Free and Prosperous Macedonia.
Macedonia above anything!

DedoAleko
very well put and I agree without hesitation, I would also add that we need to monitor closely what the Goverment is doing and any hint of name changing and negotiation should be strongly opposed as it will destroy any good work that may have been done to date!

[Prolet]

http://www.sitel.com.mk/video/makedonija/stav-na-gragjanite-za-predlogot-za-imeto-od-grcija

In this above video, no citizen wants to change our name especially to Northern Macedonia.

Nema menvanje na imeto

Samo Sonceto e postaro od Makedonija!!!

[Mastika]

1. What does the concept of SOVEREIGNTY of the Republic of Macedonia, or of the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, mean to you?

2. Do you see any human rights issues in these negotiations?

3. Are you aware that the whole concept of human rights (designed for the purpose of protecting individuals and minorities from the power of the state or the tyranny of the majority) is based on the presumption that a majority does not have the right to take away or trade away the rights of individuals or minorities?

4. Do you think that any referendum at which people vote under duress is an expression of the FREE will of the citizens?

1. The sovereignty of the republic of Macedonia is the right of the citizens of that republic to decide on how to rule the country, which they do in the form of electing representatives to the parliament. Will the negotiations affect Macedonias sovereignty? No, unless they are forced upon the country without the will of the citizens.

2. Yes of course there are human rights issues revolving around these discussions, especially revolving the language and ethnicity, which the Greeks have advocated. However, the Government and the elected representatives have expressed the will of the people that the language/identity of the citizens is NOT for negotiation. The government does not have the authority to change our ethnic/cultural identity, nor is it interested in doing this. This is why it annoys me when people claim that the government is negotiating the identity, when in reality it has no desire/interest in doing so.

3. Yes human rights are designed to put everyone on an equal footing.

4. Of course not, however if an election was called for tomorrow the citizens of Macedonia would not be "under duress". If a free and fair election is held and the citizens choose to change the name, then they have the right to do so (that is also the day i stop calling myself a Macedonian). The citizens of Macedonia have the right to decide on their name, and in the end they and them only will decide on the constitutional name of the country.

The acceptance of the Interim Accord, which accepts the objectionability of the name Repubic of Macedonia and requires negotiations for a new name (at least for 'international' use), in itself amounts to accepting a name change. The only thing left to decide is a mutually acceptable (between Greece and FYROM) new name.

Not necesserily, the interim accord does not mean that the name of the Republic of Macedonia must be altered before it is passed. The name could very much stay the same, however for this we would need Greece's approval, which I think that eventually Macedonia will get (i'm not saying that it should need it). It requires a mutually acceptable solution, eventually that mutually acceptable solution will be in our favour (that is what i believe).

[aleksandrov]

Vangelovski,

Can you help Mastika out with the concepts of sovereignty and human rights? I am too busy now to go through it all over again. Thanks for your help in advance.

Alternatively, Mastika might choose do research some authoritative sources on these concepts, without ignoring the meaning of FREE will, which is integral to them. However, given that he seems to be going out of his way to imply that the Government has a right to change the name of the state (i.e. the identity of the state, which at this state derives from the ethnic identity of the majority indigenous population) as long as it uses the citizens as a rubber stamp (at a referendum which will inevitable be driven by a deceptive fear campaign), I don't think he places much value on true freedom.