United Macedonia Diaspora

[Buktop]

Please Charlatan, tell us again who Rogi asked. You seem to know more about what Rogi did than Rogi himself.

Have you taken YOUR idiotic theories to a law professor or political philosopher yet?

If you can't remember what YOUR idiotic theory was, go back and read the thread.

Once we've established that first point, then we can continue the discussion.

My idiotic theory was that anything not prohibited by the constitution or law is legal

Article 8 of the constitution, anything not prohibited by the constitution or law of Macedonia is legal

Rogi asked lawyers, they agreed.

You are a farse Vangelovski, your only purpose here is to repeat Charlatan as many times as you can before you become irrelevant.

[Dzog]

I had a read of that particular thread and there was some interesting discussion, with good points from both sides.

Vangelovski's assertations cannot be denied as ideals for a good Constitution, but I think we need to appreciate the uniqueness (including strengths and flaws) of each Constitution and realise that Macedonia's is not a "good" Constitution.

I will post what I discussed with Vangelovski through PM to add further insight into this issue:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Articles 88-97 of the Macedonian Constitution vest very broad executive powers in the Government, with the only limiting factors being "the Constitution and the law". Keep in mind also that the Macedonian Constitution can technically be changed without the consent of the people (see Articles 129-131) - a major divergence from the "Western constitutional tradition". So, I do not agree that the Macedonian Government has not been given the power to negotiate the name changes. From my point of view, broad executive powers have been given to the Government without a genuine check, thus negating the need for express authorities in the Constitution itself or from the people. This points to the weakness of the Macedonian Constitution (something which I also have spoken about previously).

Given the above, the Government can be seen to have practically unlimited power - which is why I think the negotiations have not been aptly challenged in the Constitutional Court (a body which has problems, obviously stemming from the shoddy Macedonian Constitution). This is why I am referring to the absence of something that limits or "forbids" the negotiations. Having said that, there is some hope if you look at the early parts of the Constitution with regards to the rights of the citizens and attempt to characterise the negotiations as some infringement of human rights and, therefore, a breach of the Constitution.


On a related note, looking at the Australian Constitution (a relatively strong and well drafted constitution), you can also see that the powers afforded to the Government are very broad - the only difference is that they are listed more "specifically" (i.e. s51). Even then, the powers are broad. For example, hypothetically, if Australia was negotiating a name change with New Zealand over a diplomatic matter, you could attempt to characterise it as an exercise of an External Affairs power under s51 (xxix) (a long shot, I know, however, this power has historically been used quite liberally), but the strength of s128, the rest of the Constitution and Australia's administrative law institutions (not to mention the Australian people) would not allow it. So, to offer a different view, I'd say the Western tradition (using only Australia's experience as the source) is pretty much the same in giving extremely broad powers to the Government but the key differences with Macedonia being that these powers are better defined and the limits on the power are unambiguous with the institutions (and people) that keep the Government in check much more stable and stronger.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An interesting case that depicts the broad interpretation of Constitutional powers in Australia that you guys may want to look at is Polyukhovich v The Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1991/32.html). In brief, it was a case about the constitutionality of the War Crimes Act (used to indict individuals for war crimes during WWII). The Commonwealth attempted to characterise this as an exercise of their external affairs power - which was affirmed by a 6:1 majority in the High Court.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Sho te bodi bre tebe Boge?

[Vangelovski]

Dzog,

So long as Macedonia claims to be a democratic republic, I will have to assert that the Government can only exercise the powers it has been specifically provided with under the constitution - i.e., a limited government.

Regardless of how broad its powers may seem under articles 88-97, how can a republican government be so presumptiuous as to believe it has the authority to negotiate the constitution (its governing document) with a foreign government?

If sovereignty belongs to the people (as even the Macedonian constitution recognises - article 2), how can the employee of the sovereign negotiate with a 'non-party' the terms of its 'employment contract'??

Nevertheless, there is nothing in articles 88-97 that could even remotely be interpreted as the people providing the government with the authority to negotiate changes to the constitution with a foreign government. This also goes for Australia's 'external affairs' power. By its very nature, a foreign actor has absolutely no say over the contents of a domestic constitution. It would be akin to you negotiating with your neighbour, the rules of your own household, rather than speaking to your wife.

We need to establish first, whether Macedonia is indeed a democratic republic (as it claims to be) and then look at specific articles in that context. If Macedonia is not a democratic republic, then we really need to be debating something else and not the constitution.

[Phoenix]

I don't pretend to be a Constitutional Law expert in the mould of a Buktop for example, I'm very far from that. Being completely ignorant of the polemic nature of this subject, as I'm sure many others are in the wider Macedonian community its all the more important that the organizations that represent our diaspora communities make every effort to ensure that we're not sold down the river.

I'm disgusted that UMD apologists like Buktop and others who wear this ill-fitting suit have attempted to divert the debate from the obvious failings and flaws of these organizations to wiping their hands clean of the responsibility to keep check on a Macedonian government that seems to have the 'power' to do whatever it likes without the carefully worded confines found in other (Western) constitutions.

I'm appalled that Buktop will spend weeks here drawing attention to the articles within the constitution that empower our leaders to do what they please when a more productive use of that time could be spent in making sure that our diaspora organizations are representing the views and interests of the Macedonian people and are acting as a final check and balance in the system.

Thanks Vangelovski and Dzog in sharing your PM with us on this matter.

[Dzog]

Vangelovski,

I am not debating your view on the interplay of democratic republicanism and Constitutions as you are much better versed and qualified in that area and, in any case, I understand and agree with the concepts. However, my understanding is that these ideals need to be enshrined in the Constitution itself rather than the subsequent power that is exercised. Basically, I'm trying to make the point that in Macedonia's case the problem lies in the Constitution and the administrative law structure of the nation as opposed to the actual exercise of the power (although the Macedonian Government should be criticised for not attempting fix the Constitution).

Before I go into further analysis, as you can see I am preoccupied with the Australian Constitution for two primary reasons: 1. it is well drafted and 2. I am more familiar with it than any other. Accordingly, I cannot discount the possibility that the experience in Australia is not transferable to Macedonia's situation, so would appreciate if anyone can provide greater insight into that.

The key issue that I am battling with is trying to figure out what the negotiations are and how this interacts with the Constitution. You suggest that the Macedonian government (as a republican government) is presuming an authority to "negotiate the Constitution with a foreign government". Firstly, the Macedonian Constitution does provide extremely broad powers (just like the Australian Constitution) but the legality of the exercise of said powers depends on the characterisation of the power in the relevant court (Constitutional Court in Macedonia; High Court in Australia) upon challenge. In Australia, judicial decisions have enforced the view that the Commonwealth's powers should be interpreted broadly, as opposed to narrowly by the High Court (see Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129 -otherwise known as the Engineer's Case http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1920/54.html). So, in Australia, I can easily see such negotiations characterised as an exercise of the External Affairs power mentioned in my previous post. In Macedonia's case, we know that the Constitution is not as descriptive as Australia's, but it vests broad powers nonetheless. Now, I have absolutely no idea at how Macedonia's Constitutional Court operates nor have I substantially researched historical decisions, but I suspect that the negotiations could be found squarely within the powers afforded by the Constitution for a couple of reasons:

1. Quite simply, the Constitution gives them that power. The Articles that have been presented by Rogi, Buktop and myself attest to this. Whether or not there is a presumption of the authority is immaterial if it falls within a prescribed power and, if we follow Australia's lead, in Macedonia's case it will.

2. The negotiations are central policy issue in Macedonia today. As undemocratic and "corrupt" as it may sound, I don't see a relatively young Macedonian Constitutional Court stopping this.

An obvious question is why should powers be interpreted broadly? A key reason is context. An article of a Constitution can tend to lose its meaning a couple of hundred years down the track (e.g. Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - The right to keep and bear arms) so courts should necessarily interpret them broadly. Of course, it sounds absurd that a Government can effectively "presume" an authority, as you suggest, but in most cases, it is a legitimate presumption. This reiterates the point that the Constitution itself must espouse the ideals of democracy rather than relying on the executive to do so as a Government, being what it is, will do whatever it can unless it is successfully challenged.

Your next question may be: how then can a Constitution engender democratic principles if Governments are effectively given free reign? As you suggest, it is the factors that limit the government - namely the Constitution itself, the administrative law structures (i.e. Constitutional/High Courts; Ombudsmans; etc.) and the people. Herein lies the divergence between Macedonia and Australia and an answer to your observation that it is the Constitution that is being negotiated. As I have explained earlier, Australia has s128 (requirement of referendum to change the Australian Constitution) whereas Macedonia has Articles 129-131 (Constitution can be changed without referendum). The significance of this is that the Australian Government would not pursue such negotiations (effectively not exercising their power) as there would be no chance that the outcome would be "ratified" by the Australian people. On the other hand, the possibility remains in Macedonia that the Government can unilaterally ratify the outcome of the negotiations (and change the Constitution). The limit that would be apply in Australia is non-existent in Macedonia and no matter how much Gruevski or Ivanov say that referendum will decide, I cannot be convinced. There are obvious problems with the Constitutional Court and administrative law bodies in Macedonia that also facilitate this, but I don't want to complicate things further.

I know the above analysis may seem long-winded but I assure you it is very abbreviated and lacking in proper research, so take from it what you will. In the future, I hope to take further research and hopefully write and disseminate a proper analysis and comparison.

Phoenix,

The underlying point I'm trying to make is that you cannot separate the ideals of democracy from a Constitution and analyse one in the other's terms - if you integrate both Vangelovski's and Buktop's arguments you'll see that the problem is both with the Macedonian Constitution and the Government that is using (or abusing?) it. Essentially, I am criticising the Macedonian Constitution for its flaws but also the Macedonian Government for not fixing these flaws (even though the exercise of their power is, I believe, legitimate in the purely legal sense of the word). Unfortunately, the political situation is such that Macedonia has continually neglected its Constitution and I feel that until it is put into order, the Republic of Macedonia will not progress.

[Phoenix]

Phoenix,

The underlying point I'm trying to make is that you cannot separate the ideals of democracy from a Constitution and analyse one in the other's terms - if you integrate both Vangelovski's and Buktop's arguments you'll see that the problem is both with the Macedonian Constitution and the Government that is using (or abusing?) it. Essentially, I am criticising the Macedonian Constitution for its flaws but also the Macedonian Government for not fixing these flaws (even though the exercise of their power is, I believe, legitimate in the purely legal sense of the word). Unfortunately, the political situation is such that Macedonia has continually neglected its Constitution and I feel that until it is put into order, the Republic of Macedonia will not progress.

You make a very valid point Dzog, I think as Macedonians we have a say in what happens or at least we should.
My stand from day one of this particular dispute regarding UMD and every Macedonian organization is that we all have a role to play in the defence of our identity and the fight for our rights, that's where our organizations, particularly in the diaspora have to be used in a watchdog fashion and our power must be harnessed accordingly then directed into putting pressure on the Macedonian Government to keep them from screwing us all.

The alternative is indifference and apathy, this is when any flaws in the constitution itself will be exploited to our detriment...

[Risto the Great]

An excellent summary Dzog. Thanks. Clearly Macedonia has its hands full just getting its own house in order.

[Soldier of Macedon]

If anyone has any legitimate concerns or questions, we invite them to contact UMD at (202) 756-2244 and/or [email protected] and UMD will respond in a timely manner. UMD will not engage in debates on public Forums with anonymous individuals. UMD organizes open forums periodically throughout the world to hear the views of Macedonians, and we invite everyone to partake in those to learn more about UMD and engage with us and our Board members on topics concerning Macedonians in your local community, country, or throughout the world. UMD takes into consideration all ideas, suggestions, opinions, and concerns.

Per the purpose of clarity, for the benefit of all readers, the above quoted text by UMD President Meto Koloski is his way of saying that he doesn't wish to admit (on this forum) to past errors or acknowledge poor choices made previously, given that here is where several of his shortcomings have been exposed time and again.

So now, true to form, Meto has woken up wth another great idea to include in his fluid policies, where he wishes to dance around questions and hide behind the pretext of not engaging in debates with "anonymous individuals" - Lucky he decided to implement this new point now as his activities at the MTO for the past several weeks would have rendered him, (suprise, suprise), a hypocrite prone to contradictions. Ah, the UMD..........

[Vangelovski]

Dzog,

To start with, I’m not sure if Australia is a comparable example. Granted, it does operate on a seemingly republican model, however, it is in fact a constitutional monarchy in that Regina granted us (her “possession”) a “Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” through an Act of the British Parliament. Hence, I’m not quite sure where sovereignty lies in Australia – with the Queen or with the body of citizens? We, as Australian’s, didn’t exactly exercise our natural rights. Macedonia on the other hand, theoretically did and established a democratic republic. This is why I use the American example.

Regardless, lets for arguments sake say that Australia is a democratic republic, I think you’re interpretation of Australia’s ‘External Affairs’ clause is so broad that it goes beyond anyone’s wildest imagination. If the Australian Government had the authority to negotiate a change to the constitution with a foreign government by virtue of the ‘External Affairs’ clause, you could just as easily argue that the Australian Government has the authority to ‘delegate’ its legislative powers to a foreign government. However, this is not the case. Section 51 provides Parliament with the authority to "make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth" and subject to the constitution - not to negotiate changes to the constitution.

What you are in fact arguing is that the Australian Government (and by extension, the Macedonian Government) has been provided with the authority (by the Australian citizens) to cede their (the Australian citizens) sovereignty over to a foreign government, which is in fact an employee of another sovereign (i.e., a group of non-Australian citizens).

The United States has a similarly vague clause (Article 1, Section 8) - when read out of context - commonly known as the “general welfare” clause. The US Government and the Supreme Court (at times, and at others not) have argued that this provides the US Government with the authority to do whatever, and by whatever means, necessary to provide for the “general welfare” of the people.

This is an extreme case, but to make my point, I’ll put it forward. Using this logic, one could argue that the “general welfare” of the American people could be much better provided for if they did not live under the threat of terrorism. In order to achieve this, it could be further argued that the US Government should negotiate some of the freedoms of its citizens to align with the extremist ideology of the Taliban in return for “peace and security” through which the provision of the “general welfare” would be much easier.

This, in my view, is insanity and contrary to the very spirit (and definition) of sovereignty. As far as I’m concerned, this line of argument is a disingenuous attempt to argue the legitimacy of what can be considered an act of treason and the usurpation of sovereignty from the body of citizens (not that I'm suggesting you are doing this).

Nevertheless, I’ll try and answer some of the points you put forward. With regards to the Engineers Case, (and from my quick read of it) the High Court certainly seems to have been of the view that the Australian Government’s powers should be interpreted more broadly, however, that specific case did in no way suggest that the Australian Government’s powers could be interpreted as broadly as you argue – to the point where the Australian Government has the authority to cede the sovereignty of the body of Australian citizens.

I agree that Australia does have a very strong safeguard in its constitution with regards to amending it, as opposed to Macedonia. However, having poor measures in place with regards to constitutional amendments does not amount to an automatic authority for the Government to do as it pleases, just because it is much more likely to get away with it.

Finally, you mention 'context'. Thats an interesting concept. The (part of) article 8 that Bucktop has thrown around needs to be read within the context of the entire article, the entire constitution and constitutional (republican) theory. A part of the constitution (article 8) cannot be allowed to defeat the very purpose of the whole.

By using the method of constitutional interpretation that Buktop suggests i.e., using one (part of) article to override the whole, we could take s. 59 of the Australian Constitution and argue that the Australian Parliament has no authority whatsoever and that the Queen has unlimited power in that she has an automatic veto over every Bill. But we know that this goes against the spirit of the constitution and the spirit (and definition) of democracy. Therefore, noone would even attempt (nor has to my knowledge) to define the Queen as an absolute ruler over Australia (regardless of my speil at the begining ). To interpret s. 59 in this "broad" way, it would effectively render our parliamentary democracy and much of the constitution itself, meaningless.

[Jankovska]

I just wanted to say that as I mentioned last week I have emailed the UMD and I got a reply from Meto and I greatly appreciate him taking the time to write me an email addressing all my concerns. Fair enough that we all have the right to our own opinion and we should always express it I just wanted to suggest to everyone with concerns to contact the UMD directly.They are a professional organisation that should not engage in public forum bickering and I understand them for that.
I am however still very shocked at the maknews behavior regarding Paul and dragging the UMD in it. The man has once again proven that he has learned nothing in his life, that he knows nothing about democracy and with him is either milom or silom. I am sick by his act.
Once again regarding the UMD, please get in touch with them. Who knows, you may be nicely surprised at the answers.

[Vangelovski]

Jankovska,

What were your specific concerns and what exactly did Meto tell you?

[Soldier of Macedon]

They are a professional organisation that should not engage in public forum bickering and I understand them for that.

I don't find that an acceptable excuse on their part. They want to have the liberty to promote themselves on our forum, no problem, they want to engage in discussions, no problem - But they wish to be excused from the 'tough' questions? I don't think so.

Where the hell has the integrity of some Macedonians gone?

Jankovska, apart from Meto sugar-coating his responses in person or over the phone, can you please tell me what the difference would be if he answered these 'tough' questions here on the forum? He is no Gruevski and the UMD certainly ain't no governing body of Macedonia, or the Diaspora, or, it would seem, of themselves.

Just have a read of all the threads here, they already have, on a number of occasions, engaged in public discussions. The precedent has already been set, but the UMD seems to be in the habit of setting its own precedents every 5 minutes.

[Phoenix]

Jankovska, its not about Meto's reply time to your e-mails alone, that is but one of many problems that have surfaced in recent weeks about both Meto as leader of UMD and the organization itself.

The problems have been compounded by certain individuals supporting UMD, particularly the administrator at Maknews, UMD's failing has been that they were very slow to react to the build up of criticism against their organization, that in my opinion was very unprofessional and showed poor leadership.

Whilst UMD stayed silent and people started to ask questions and demand answers people like Buktop entered the debate and defended UMD policy by arguments over semantics, this was the ideal time for UMD to take back the intiative by making some statements clearing these matters up but they chose to 'weather the storm' in silence.
Which other organization does that...?

The issues surrounding the UMD remain, the questions remain the same and unanswered. Its unfortunate for UMD that Buktop and Maknews have been seen as defacto 'representatives' of UMD because Maknews' involvement has really soured the views of many Australian Macedonians regarding the UMD.

What some people fail to realise is that many Australian Macedonians were somewhat indifferent in their opinions about UMD because UMD is an upstart organization based in the USA not too many Australian Macedonians were interested or knew much about them. Today the story is a little bit different and UMD has come under alot of scrutiny and many people don't like what they see.

[Soldier of Macedon]

..................Maknews' involvement has really soured the views of many Australian Macedonians regarding the UMD.

What some people fail to realise is that many Australian Macedonians were somewhat indifferent in their opinions about UMD because UMD is an upstart organization based in the USA not too many Australian Macedonians were interested or knew much about them. Today the story is a little bit different and UMD has come under alot of scrutiny and many people don't like what they see.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Spot on.