Macedonian Diaspora Candidates

[Pelister]

So you are pro-negotiation (in every sense) then.

That for me is the ultimate question.

Does he see anything wrong with individual politicians moving the question of admission out of the U.N institution? Is he someone who believes that our admission to the U.N should be dealt with through the processes of the U.N institution, or outside of it (as is the case at the moment)? Is he one of this New Breed of Macedonians, who doesn't know any better, and probably couldn't care less?

[Soldier of Macedon]

I also won't be dragged into issues that I have no real interest in. Like the one you are pushing, furthermore there are other posts where I have shared my views in other threads..........

Which threads? If you've already answered the question I asked previously, I will no longer bother you on that point here.

.............despite its name Macedonian Truth forum is now seemingly allowing allegation and rumor without seeking any basis and evidence - if it suits the view of the Administrator.

Oh please........put your deluded perceptions and wild assumptions back in your pocket. Just look at the facts.

• DPNE put our name on the gambling table in 2008. Fact.
• DPNE is still gambling with our name by taking part in discussions with Greece. Fact.
• Miki is now the Australian 'representative' in Macedonia for DPNE. Fact.
• Petar has tried to cripple the Macedonian Orthodox community in Australia. Fact.
• Petar is still trying to cripple the Macedonian Orthodox community in Australia. Fact.
• Miki is a supporter of Petar. Fact.

If I am wrong on any of the above, then kindly advise. If I am not, then you tell me, Rogi, what would be a logical assessment of the above? He is either in cahoots with Gruevski, or one of these Dr Srgjan Kerim 'types' who are only patriotic behind closed doors. You made reference to the Melbourne demonstration and their statement which calls for the Macedonian government to stop gambling with our name. You highlighted the fact that Miki was the main organiser. Do you think now that he is in government he will continue to openly express such sentiment, not only within the DPNE party but also across the wider political spectrum, as he supposedly did while he was in Australia?

......I am also personally very affended, as you intended, by your personal attack against me, comparing me to the 'UMD apolpgists'.

I apologise if you feel offended. And I understand that you were seeking corroboration to some of the assertions made about Miki here - and while that is fair enough, to come in like you did without producing evidence that would dispel these assertions or 'rumours' hardly gives the appearance of an impartial participant in this discussion.

I do not believe that he should receive our automatic support (my posts no where say this), rather I believe that he should be given a reasonable amount of time as the elected member before we can fairly judge what he has done for his constituents.

I want to agree with you on this point, but his candidacy for the political party that is negotiating our name isn't encouraging, to say the least. Do you think his purpose is to convey the sentiments of the Macedonian Diaspora in the Macedonian government? If so, and if he stays true to his purpose, then we won't have to wait long before we hear some news on how 'well' he is doing. All the best to him, I really hope he does the right thing by the Macedonians in Australia, for the sake of Macedonians across the world.

[Vangelovski]

You will find that the number of persons living in Australia, born in Macedonia with Macedonian passports is significantly less than 66,000 (assuming that the number of 2nd generation Australian born Macedonians with citizenship is negligible).

Without the stats to back yourself up, your just blowing smoke. Regardless, you need to look further into diaspora voting and the inherent problems with it.

The lack of convenient voting stations, the 'First time' factor and the large number of people who want to vote yet were not able to (2nd generation with no citizenship, people without Macedonian passports, generally fast paced electoral process, inability of many old people to register on the internet, etc.), led to the low voter turnout. I'm sure if the electoral law is changed, then voter turnout will be much higher next time round (even if it isn't it will still be somewhat higher as people will have had the chance to fix the legal/electoral problem which prevented them from voting this time round).

The idea for Macedonians in the diaspora to vote has been around for at least a decade. I doubt much will change. Even with imporvements in the ability to register and access voting centres, that won't necessarily translate into a care factor or any significant ability to influence Macedonian politics. This is where your naivity in relation to the Macedonian political system kicks in. They're not interested in the Macedonian diaspora having any meaningful input into Macedonian policy.

I was just using property as one example on which the member can work on behalf of his constituents. There are a swathe of other areas as well; Securing funds for Macedonian projects in the diaspora, greater efforts to ensure that people swap their old Yugoslav passports for Macedonian ones, making sure that the electoral process is better conducted in the next round of elections to ensure that more people can vote (this to me is an obvious improvement which can be made), Represent the Diaspora's view on issues regarding national identity, national symbols, the name dispute, etc., promoting tourist links between the diaspora and Macedonia, promoting foreign diaspora investment through changes to commercial regulations, etc.

Again, this is where you naivity in relation to the Macedonian political system is bringing you down.

The reality which you have pointed out is a reflection on the candidacy not the system. If you agree in theory then why don't you give the situation a chance to play out (Even if it fails, as you believe, let it fail before you criticise it. Then at least you will know it has failed). All I am saying is give the system a chance, then provide commentary on how it is successful/can be improved (which is what I have been saying from the very beginning) There is nothing wrong with optimism.

Sometimes, particularly when you make the effort to inform yourself, you can know how things will pan out. Sometimes it only takes a quick glance at the past 20 years.

[Mastika]

At the end of the day, out of approximately 66,000 Macedonians of voting age in Australia (ABS Stats) only 750 bothered to even register to vote in this election. That is one of the biggest flops I have seen. If you think Dodevski has a "mandate" to represent the whole Macedonian community in Australia (same goes for the American and European MPs), or even just Macedonian citizens in Australia, then you have a serious intellectual deficiency.

You will find that the number of persons living in Australia, born in Macedonia with Macedonian passports is significantly less than 66,000 (assuming that the number of 2nd generation Australian born Macedonians with citizenship is negligible).

The overwhelming majority of Macedonians in the diaspora ignored, for whatever reasons, this election and just because 1% of the Macedonians in Australia voted, that does not provide Dodevski with a mandate to represent the views of the 99% who have shown no interest in being represented in the Macedonian parliament, regardless of who the MP is.

The lack of convenient voting stations, the 'First time' factor and the large number of people who want to vote yet were not able to (2nd generation with no citizenship, people without Macedonian passports, generally fast paced electoral process, inability of many old people to register on the internet, etc.), led to the low voter turnout. I'm sure if the electoral law is changed, then voter turnout will be much higher next time round (even if it isn't it will still be somewhat higher as people will have had the chance to fix the legal/electoral problem which prevented them from voting this time round).

The two examples that you provide in which the diaspora MP's can represent Macedonians are fairly weak. The first was property law. Firstly, there are literally millions of people across the world that own property in foreign countries of which they are not even citizens, without needing political representation - I don't see what is so special about the Macedonian case. Secondly, Macedonians' property interests would be much better protected if corruption was stamped out and their property rights could be guaranteed by law (which at the moment is a joke). Thirdly, your delving into the domain of local government in which Dodevski will have no influence.

I was just using property as one example on which the member can work on behalf of his constituents. There are a swathe of other areas as well; Securing funds for Macedonian projects in the diaspora, greater efforts to ensure that people swap their old Yugoslav passports for Macedonian ones, making sure that the electoral process is better conducted in the next round of elections to ensure that more people can vote (this to me is an obvious improvement which can be made), Represent the Diaspora's view on issues regarding national identity, national symbols, the name dispute, etc., promoting tourist links between the diaspora and Macedonia, promoting foreign diaspora investment through changes to commercial regulations, etc.

Your second point was electoral law. To a degree, I agree that in theory diaspora representation could be used to positively influence the Macedonian political system. In theory. In reality, three MP's from the diaspora who have very little experience and connections in Macedonia will be no more than puppets - much like the diaspora minister's that Gruevski originally appointed when he first came to office.

The reality which you have pointed out is a reflection on the candidacy not the system. If you agree in theory then why don't you give the situation a chance to play out (Even if it fails, as you believe, let it fail before you criticise it. Then at least you will know it has failed). All I am saying is give the system a chance, then provide commentary on how it is successful/can be improved (which is what I have been saying from the very beginning) There is nothing wrong with optimism.

[Vangelovski]

Mastika,

The reference to UMD was made because they usually accuse people of attacking them for "personal reasons", much like you are doing.

At the end of the day, out of approximately 66,000 Macedonians of voting age in Australia (ABS Stats) only 750 bothered to even register to vote in this election. That is one of the biggest flops I have seen. If you think Dodevski has a "mandate" to represent the whole Macedonian community in Australia (same goes for the American and European MPs), or even just Macedonian citizens in Australia, then you have a serious intellectual deficiency.

The overwhelming majority of Macedonians in the diaspora ignored, for whatever reasons, this election and just because 1% of the Macedonians in Australia voted, that does not provide Dodevski with a mandate to represent the views of the 99% who have shown no interest in being represented in the Macedonian parliament, regardless of who the MP is.

The two examples that you provide in which the diaspora MP's can represent Macedonians are fairly weak. The first was property law. Firstly, there are literally millions of people across the world that own property in foreign countries of which they are not even citizens, without needing political representation - I don't see what is so special about the Macedonian case. Secondly, Macedonians' property interests would be much better protected if corruption was stamped out and their property rights could be guaranteed by law (which at the moment is a joke). Thirdly, your delving into the domain of local government in which Dodevski will have no influence.

Your second point was electoral law. To a degree, I agree that in theory diaspora representation could be used to positively influence the Macedonian political system. In theory. In reality, three MP's from the diaspora who have very little experience and connections in Macedonia will be no more than puppets - much like the diaspora minister's that Gruevski originally appointed when he first came to office.

[George S.]

I heard from people who flew to canberra from perth & went to the various other places to register but when it was time to vote they weren't able to fly there & vote.These were voters from perth.People can't say that it was made easy for everyone.Also i also heard from relatives that have travelled to macedonia regularly & voted & were registered on macedonian computers in macedonia but on the embassy (canberra)they were not shown on the electoral roll & also on the ccomputer.They were told to wait that there is very little that could be done.They never got a chance to vote.Similarly who know that they could also vote with their identity card if they didn't have a macedonian pasport.
So don't give me any shit about how easy it was to vote especially when people were prevented in some way of voting.
Another case i heard that when Macedonian people tried to register say in canberra they were told that the were allready registered in munchen (munich) or some other city they have never been.These people have allways lived in australia.

[George S.]

The 750 that voted are really not representing much of the overall macedonian population in australia of a couplehundred thousand.Macedonian parliament has only jusrisdiction in macedonia.The way things have been set up i wonder if miki dedovski is really represnting the 750 .Simply due to numbers & being diaspora they will be ignored.What is miki really going to do for the diaspora & inturn will the government listen & act to what the diaspora thinks??

[Mastika]

Unless you are a fully paid UMD member, you can't use the 'attack due to personal reasons' BS.

Typical attack when your personal bias is exposed; make reference to UMD. Accept the fact that you too are capable of being biased (like we all are), and that your constant rebuttals about this issue is an example of this. (Better to deal with a person who is acknwoledges that they are prone to personal bias, than one which insists that they are objective in all matters)

Besides, your point below demonstrates the dubiousness of a diaspora vote by admitting that there is a disjoint between the people who elected a diaspora MP and the people on whose behalf that diaspora MP will be legislating.

I don't believe at all that it is dubious. It is about time the Macedonians in Australia got some sort of a voice in the Macedonian parliament. The question for is should be how can we capitalise on this opportunity and not have a 'lets discredit it because I have a personal dislike for the elected MP' mentality.

I don't think you know what you're discussing. On what matters exactly will the diaspora MP be representing Macedonian citizens living in Australia? On which legislative issues will he be able to represent any of the registered voters, let alone other Macedonian citizens over whom he has no legislative authority and who did not even participate in a foreign election?

There are many issues which a diaspora MP can provide input, and vote on. There are a range of laws from owning property in Mk, to changing the electoral process, which the MP's constituents would be interested in, etc. I do not need to provide a list of the diaspora's interests/dealings with Macedonia. Whatever they are, you should expect a diaspora MP to legislate/provide input on.

[Vangelovski]

This is nothing more than an opinionated attack on the diaspora vote. Obviously due to personal reasons.

Unless you are a fully paid UMD member, you can't use the 'attack due to personal reasons' BS. Besides, your point below demonstrates the dubiousness of a diaspora vote by admitting that there is a disjoint between the people who elected a diaspora MP and the people on whose behalf that diaspora MP will be legislating.

True, they have none. (I will reiterate, jurisdiction is a different issue which I am not discussing) The representatives from IE 7, 8 and 9 are there to legislate in respect to people living in Macedonia. And thus they are to legislate for persons living outside of their divisions. Maybe your issue is with the fact that persons living outside of Macedonia have been given the right to legislate in Macedonia. In that case your issue lies not with the legitimacy of a legally elected MP, but rather with the legitimacy of that MP's electoral division/place in parliament.

I don't think you know what you're discussing. On what matters exactly will the diaspora MP be representing Macedonian citizens living in Australia? On which legislative issues will he be able to represent any of the registered voters, let alone other Macedonian citizens over whom he has no legislative authority and who did not even participate in a foreign election?

[Mastika]

Mastika,

Noone is denying that Dodevski was elected to the Macedonian parliament. What you fail to understand is who he legitimately represents. The Macedonian state and its parliament have no jurisdiction in Australia and Asia. He does not automatically represent every single Macedonian in Australia and Asia just because they happen to be Macedonians or Macedonian citizens. He can only legitimately represent those who registered to vote and participated in that vote.

Lack of jurisdiction is a related yet fundamentally different issue to the one being discussed here. Electoral division 9 has been established to provide a representative in the Macedonian parliament on behalf of in that division. Just as the elected MP's in IE5 represent the Macedonian citizens living in Bitola, Resen, etc. so too does the representative of IE9 represent the Macedonian citizens living within his/her electorate.

I am not aware that a certain percentage of citizens must actively vote in any Macedonian electoral district for the vote to be 'legitimate'. If this exists in law, please show me, and prove me wrong. Otherwise, what else are you basing your claims of illegitimacy on? (Personal dislike of the MP/party?) [Article 62 Macedonian constitution: Пратеникот ги претставува граѓаните/The Representative represents the citizens; is it only electors which are represented by the member? or is it Macedonian citizens on the whole?]

By your idiotic logic, Dodevski should represent all 20 million Australians in the Macedonian Parliament and about 3 billion other Asians because he was elected as the candidate for Australia and Asia.

No, his job is to represent Macedonian citizens, living in his electoral division, in the Macedonian parliament. Where has it been established the a Macedonian MP is the elected representative of non-Macedonian citizens?

While an elected official does legitimately represent their electorate under normal circumstances, within the state, this is a highly experimental and dubious system that a number of countries have implemented - a diaspora vote.

This is nothing more than an opinionated attack on the diaspora vote. Obviously due to personal reasons.

What legal basis does the Macedonian parliament have to legislate for the Macedonians in Australia and Asia, or for that matter, 'every man, woman and child' numbering 3 billion+ that happen to fall within his electorate? None. This exercise was nothing more than a symbolic representative for Macedonians who chose to participate in that vote and a few extra seats for the DPMNE government to manipulate the structure of the parliament.

True, they have none. (I will reiterate, jurisdiction is a different issue which I am not discussing) The representatives from IE 7, 8 and 9 are there to legislate in respect to people living in Macedonia. And thus they are to legislate for persons living outside of their divisions. Maybe your issue is with the fact that persons living outside of Macedonia have been given the right to legislate in Macedonia. In that case your issue lies not with the legitimacy of a legally elected MP, but rather with the legitimacy of that MP's electoral division/place in parliament.

[Vangelovski]

Mastika,

Noone is denying that Dodevski was elected to the Macedonian parliament. What you fail to understand is who he legitimately represents. The Macedonian state and its parliament have no jurisdiction in Australia and Asia. He does not automatically represent every single Macedonian in Australia and Asia just because they happen to be Macedonians or Macedonian citizens. He can only legitimately represent those who registered to vote and participated in that vote.

By your idiotic logic, Dodevski should represent all 20 million Australians in the Macedonian Parliament and about 3 billion other Asians because he was elected as the candidate for Australia and Asia.

While an elected official does legitimately represent their electorate under normal circumstances, within the state, this is a highly experimental and dubious system that a number of countries have implemented - a diaspora vote.

What legal basis does the Macedonian parliament have to legislate for the Macedonians in Australia and Asia, or for that matter, 'every man, woman and child' numbering 3 billion+ that happen to fall within his electorate? None. This exercise was nothing more than a symbolic representative for Macedonians who chose to participate in that vote and a few extra seats for the DPMNE government to manipulate the structure of the parliament.

[Mastika]

False statement?!?! Do you even have a basic understanding of democracy and political representation?

Yes, it is a false statement. The member was elected on the most number of votes. He fit the criteria needed for election, and was elected by popular vote.

You have interesting theories, but not everything in theory is realistically applicable in practise.

Firstly, most Macedonians in Australia aren't even Macedonian citizens to begin with.

I am aware of this, and for this reason I have constantly said "Macedonian citizens in Australia" as opposed to simply "Macedonians in Australia".

Secondly, only 750 people in Australia are on the electoral list, only 750 participated in this process and he can only claim to legitimately represent 750 registered voters.

All Macedonian citizens were given the opportunity to vote. Legal legitimacy has a legal base in electoral regulations. If the number of electors is met, then legitimacy is established. (A MP might not be legitimate in your eyes, however your view is not neccessarily the 'legitimate' one)

Answer me these two questions.
Does one have to be on the electoral roll to be represented by the elected representative in the electorate in which they would have voted in, if they were on the roll?
Is representation not extended to those not on the electoral roll (including children, etc.) or to those who are but did not vote?

As far as anyone else is concerned, they are Australian citizens who don't want anything to do with the Macedonian parliament, its electoral system or this MP.

The same can be said abou Australian citizens who want nothing to do with the Australian parliament, its [Australia's] electoral system or their MP. Does this make the MP who represent their electoral division/them an illegitimate one?

[Vangelovski]

This is a false statement. I also disagree with the way in which voting was handled, however this does not make him an illegitimate representative. He is however the representative of Macedonian citizens living in Australia in the Macedonian parliament. As long as the electoral criteria was met, then the number of electors is irrelevant. (I believe that if a candidate which you approved of was elected, then you would have been muted, to say the least, in your claims that he is not a legitimate MP, etc.)

False statement?!?! Do you even have a basic understanding of democracy and political representation?

Firstly, most Macedonians in Australia aren't even Macedonian citizens to begin with. Secondly, only 750 people in Australia are on the electoral list, only 750 participated in this process and he can only claim to legitimately represent 750 registered voters. As far as anyone else is concerned, they are Australian citizens who don't want anything to do with the Macedonian parliament, its electoral system or this MP.

[Rogi]

I'm talking about the implication against his character, based on association relating to Church matters, which still bear no relevance to my initial posts.

SoM, my posts are not in the defense of anyone, rather against allegation and rumour. In the same way I'd have done if it were anyone else in question.

I also won't be dragged into issues that I have no real interest in. Like the one you are pushing, furthermore there are other posts where I have shared my views in other threads - none of that is relevant to the issue here, which remains, despite its name Macedonian Truth forum is now seemingly allowing allegation and rumor without seeking any basis and evidence - if it suits the view of the Administrator. That's hardly a recipe for truth and a slippery slope indeed.

As for putting words in my mouth, I refer to your baseless allegation that I have advocated for automatic support. In fact, it is the contrary, when I have said I did not even vote myself - I revealed this to indicate my non bias and that my post is not about support or defense, but about truth and fact being the requirement to substantiate any claim or allegation.

For me, friendship has no bearing on principle, particularly on principle pertaining to the Macedonian cause. Perhaps this is not clear to you.


Finally, I am also personally very affended, as you intended, by your personal attack against me, comparing me to the 'UMD apolpgists'. You clearly have no concept or understanding of the absolute issues of principles that I raised in my initial post, or you choose to ignore them.

In any case, I withdraw from future posts here, it's hardly worth my time when it seems the priority is argument above all.

[Mastika]

So you are pro-negotiation (in every sense) then.

No, I am not. But by this logic, the 1,200,000 Macedonians who voted in the recent elections are also pro-negotiations given that they voted for a political party (apparently all political parties are pro-negotiations). Correct me if this not an understandable conclusion to come arrive at by using your logic.

No he's not, he can only legitimately represent those 750 that registered to vote.

This is a false statement. I also disagree with the way in which voting was handled, however this does not make him an illegitimate representative. He is however the representative of Macedonian citizens living in Australia in the Macedonian parliament. As long as the electoral criteria was met, then the number of electors is irrelevant. (I believe that if a candidate which you approved of was elected, then you would have been muted, to say the least, in your claims that he is not a legitimate MP, etc.)

That's a naive understanding of Macedonian politics.

Maybe it is naive, maybe it is being somewhat hopeful.

Mastika, now that he is in the parliament, do you think Miki would oppose his leader on issues such as the name 'dispute' that was created by Greece?

I honestly don't know. One would hope that he effectively represents his constituents, and this would of course be lodging his objection to the name dispute, etc. I personally would like to see what he can do for community groups and organisations here in the diaspora, and how he can assist people in promoting the Macedonian culture, identity, language, etc. at a grassroots level.

People like yourself and Rogi seem to think that he should receive automatic support just because he is from Australia, and that we should disregard the fact that the party he has joined proposed a name other than the official one to gain entry into NATO, and the fact that he supports a 'bishop' who has tried to cripple the Macedonian Orthodox community in Australia. Both of you sound like these amatuerish UMD apologists who defended Meto when Meto wouldn't even defend himself.

I do not believe that he should receive our automatic support (my posts no where say this), rather I believe that he should be given a reasonable amount of time as the elected member before we can fairly judge what he has done for his constituents.

Do you support Petar? I know that Rogi has danced around the question a few times:

I firmly believe that the Churches should remain in the hands of those people that built them and that they should not be seized forcibly the vladika, or anyone else for that matter. (short answer: no)