Macedonian Diaspora Candidates

[Niko777]

I think we can agree that the main purpose of assigning seats for the diaspora was not to actually represent the diaspora, rather it was used as a tool by Gruevski's party to gain 3 additional seats in parliament, as they were well aware of how unpopular SDSM was among Macedonians abroad.

[Risto the Great]

Show me one Macedonian person in the Diaspora who believes in amnesty for the ethnic Albanian terrorists of Macedonia in 2001!

Dodevski's vote had absolutely nothing to do with the Diaspora's will. He is not a Diaspora representative and serves no use in his present capacity. A complete failure that can only be redeemed if the Diaspora reminds him of his obligations.

[makedonche]

I saw the question, Voted No, then read the rest of the comments. For me the answer is quite obvious as I am not prepared to give up my right to my views in order to appease a politician or political party, unlike many other people - some of whom have given up most of their rights without a fight while Albanian terrorists were killing their own kin!

[julie]

Diaspora Macedonians are a thorn in the side for traitorous Macedonian governments, a voice they try and quell with supposed representation. It amazes me how so called Macedonian representatives of the diaspora either are apathetic to, or are in agreeance to towing the party line in the disgusting Albanian terrorists antics to our people.

Shame and disgrace, to shit on ones own blood

[ProMKD]

You are right, the ONLY way to even have a chance of convincing Dodevski that he should represent the diaspora is by reminding him. This poll should be presented to his 'office' if he has one, after a week or so, and the results will be obvious: The Diaspora is NOT happy with his decisions. Can someone help provide other emails for the Euro/N. American representatives? This way we can make sure they are all doing their job.

[Brian]

As for the poll, I voted NO. He is supposed to represent Macedonians from the diaspora, and unless the views of the ruling party are aligned with those of the diaspora, he should not be supporting them, as their decisions are detrimental to the Macedonian Cause.

Doesn't it depend on what platform they were running on. Does anyone really know what exactly they said they would and wouldn't do? Broad statemennts like 'the best for Macedonia' could mean anything. Likewise saying 'represent the Diaspora's interests' could be easially twisted to 'what's best for Macedonia'.

What real interests does the Diaspora have - what this or that tax rate should be, or some other general business of the mechanics of government? How much 'skin-of-our-noses' are any of those things? We know SDSM are open traitors and VMRO are sly traitors, so would any party candidate truelly represent the views of the Diaspora, or would they easilly twist it to mean doing their 'best for Macedonia' leaving it to our imagination of what that means. A party candidate will/can run on the party platform. I voted No, but how many party representative in Australian ect. politics do just that. I think only an independent candidate can truelly say he represents the Diaspora.

[ProMKD]

Brian, if you want to be technical like that, then even an independent candidate can do what he wants, and say broad things.

It's totally upto the individual himself, and what he stands for, and how big of a liar he is. My only problem with an independent is that they have no influence in parliament. In my opinion, the best solution would be this:
1. Vote in favour of a good person, and if they are in dpmne, they can talk to the other members, convince them or plead the case of the diaspora, and make other dpmne members vote in ways that the diaspora would want them to vote, etc.

[Volk]

This is a good question, the immediate answer is blatantly obvious, its NO, 'we' elected him he should be 'our' voice...

Looking at thinks more closely it starts to become more grey...

Brian's point is a very valid one, once a party member get elected, they almost always tow the 'party line', regardless of there beliefs...

Main points:

- the Diaspora elections were a joke and simply a political tool for VRMO to gain extra seats.
- The diaspora seat in parliament is purely a symbolic gesture due to the inadequacies of the vote system and the amount of votes obtained
- expecting great leadership in a ceremonial seat from what seems to be a hand picked party individual is somewhat wishful thinking...

In relation to the original question, shouldn't we also ask- should any parliamentary representative in Macedonia have to tow the party line despite constituents views?? As they are part of the larger system.

Although I dont agree with the amnesty whatsoever you can see in most cases the answer is parliamentary representatives do or will tow the party line especially when the issue is not directly effecting there respective constituents but may or at least should draw the line when such actions adversely effect those.

[Brian]

All I meant was that part people are usually party sucks and rarely kick-up a fuss (or get a conscious vote) because they want to keep their job. It's the likes of Xenophon, fighting against the pokie machines, and Bob Katter, fighting for a registry and tighter laws on all foreign purchases of Australian farming land (both independent). Why haven't any Liberals or Labor done that? Because, 'if you want to keep your job, have a suck of this 'kick-back gravy' and all your worries will go away'.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Is there anything stopping him from becoming an indepedent right now? Even if he is a part of Gruevski's party, is there anything preventing him from voting against a treacherous law like the one relating to amnesty?

[Brian]

Maybe his long term political career. What he did was wrong. There is no justification for it. Sometimes principles cost money/careers - good men stand up and risk it, and sometimes they fall, and other times the people get behind them and they rise to power/prominence, while sucks take the easy way out and keep slurping the gravy.

[George S.]

rtg has said it a real representative represents the diaspora constituents.If we are a baby dodeski has thrown the baby with the bathwater many times.He is simply siding with ruling party.That is not real represntation & we don't need that kind of representation.We are going to agree unintentionally simply we haven't got the right representation.One more toime we have been let down big time.They don't want us to have our say or even our say is suppresed.
I think we need to release maybe a mto press release that the representation is not really democratic when our say can be simply ignored.Also the representative doesn't want to represent the real needs of the diaspora we sould ecpress our total disatisfaction at this form of arrangement where it is a sellout.If it doesn't get rectified we should boycott the next elections,this time we have no faith in our reprentative miki dodevski.
i have said no to the vote for a reason that the representative doesnot need to toe the line.He needs to represent his constituents otherwise he just does the bidding of the ruling party.That's not a real representation.

[Risto the Great]

It is hard not to be cynical.
These people either have no career and are looking to rort politics for a while and that is why they become compliant.
Or else they give up their career and are principled and get kicked out in a very short time.

[George S.]

so what was the point of giving the diaspora the vote when the final outcome the representatives would side with the ruling party.So anything suggested by the diaspora no matter how important can be ditched & or ignored.Looks like they are pretending to give you the vote & take awy your vote.So it's all a waste of time.

[DirtyCodingHabitz]

And I voted YES because I didn't even read what this topic was about. Anyway I can revote?