Some opinions of Speaker Gashi from the parliamentary briefing regarding reforms in public administration
- The speaker of the Assembly, Gashi, announced in principle that the new legal text, which puts expertise before ethnicity, will go through a series of expert debates before being voted on. While the Government is sending the proposal to the Parliament, with the green light for it given by the Venice Commission, the opposition DUI has already announced resistance
The adoption of the new law on adequate and fair representation must be preceded by a serious and broad public debate in order to reach a quality and sustainable solution. This is the main commitment that the President of the Assembly, Afrim Gashi, emphasized during the recent regular briefing with journalists. He emphasized that after 25 years of the framework agreement, the state is adopting such a law for the first time, so “a few more weeks of waiting” mean nothing if a better text is obtained.
– I will initiate, propose and motivate to organize a debate. For the first time in 25 years after the framework agreement was passed, such a law is passed, and it would be good to implement it from all aspects. It is difficult to predict when it would be brought because it depends on many factors. I would like the debate to be broad, multidimensional, expert, to respect the procedure and to express the will of the deputies. There should be more openness, inputs, analyses. If we can improve the law with the amendments, it would be in favor of the law. The idea is to pass a quality law, because we have been waiting for 25 years, we may have to wait a few more weeks. At least that dimension of the Constitution should be respected with a quality law – said Gashi.
Competence should be a priority before the ethnic key as a criterion
The new legal solution, which has already received a positive opinion from the Venice Commission, introduces a new hierarchy in employment in the public sector. According to the announcements made by Vice Prime Minister Bekim Sali, expertise and competence will be a primary requirement, while belonging to an underrepresented community will be treated as a secondary criterion.
In order to prevent the previous abuses with false ethnic declaration, the law stipulates:
– Verification through documents: Ethnicity will be determined on the basis of identity cards or other public documents.
– Voluntariness: Citizens have the right to express themselves freely, but also the right not to state their community at all.
– Effective equality: Differential treatment will be applied only to candidates with equal qualifications, in order to ensure fair representation without violating the principle of merit (merit system).
DUI with criticisms, the Parliament with procedural dilemmas
While the ruling majority prepares the ground for adoption, the opposition DUI has already announced that it will vote against, calling the law “regressive”. Their remarks refer to the absence of penal provisions and the fact that the institutions do not have a strict obligation for ethnic identification in every employment.
In addition, the question of whether this law will require the so-called Badenter’s majority, for which Gashi announced that the parliamentary expert services will give the final word.
Editorial observation
Quality is the only key to a healthy country
In truly mature democratic societies, ethnic keys as an employment mechanism are not only unnecessary but also an obstacle to real progress. It is high time to start making a clear distinction between two categories that are often deliberately confused in our country: society and the state.
Multiculturalism and multiethnicity are features of a society and in it everyone should enjoy their diversity. But that does not mean that this diversity must be mechanically reflected in state institutions at any cost. The state is not a social category, an ethnic concern, but a system that requires efficiency. That is why the “ethnic key” formula for employment in institutions does not bring the administration to a higher level, but on the contrary, it further sinks into its mediocrity, causing general dissatisfaction among citizens.
What makes a country strong and functional are only competent and quality individuals who build it, symbolically speaking, its steel construction, respective solid institutions. State institutions have their own prerogatives for quality, which must not be subject to political or ethnic bargaining. The state needs a dimensioned, small and efficient administration, following the pattern of some European states similar in number and size to Macedonia, and it is built only through the merit system – a system of merit, knowledge and skills.
That is exactly why it should be seen as a competition in cadres and capable individuals, and not as a competition in ethnic numbers, that is, quotas, which will get more party followers. On the other hand, when the most capable are chosen, then the benefits of such a professional approach will be felt by all citizens, regardless of their ethnic, social or educational background.
When an institution works according to European standards, provides timely and quality services, then the citizen waiting in front of the counter – regardless of whether he is Macedonian, Albanian, Turkish or Serbian – will not care who is standing on the other side. It is important to him to receive fast and quality service. The success of the institution does not come from the fact that there were “representatives” of the communities inside, but because capable people worked inside.
Anyway, maybe it should have been done a long time ago, but now it’s high time to make some things clear: society is a space for cultural pluralism, but the state requires standards and norms. Only by separating these two principles will we get institutions that really serve the citizens and not the ethnic percentages. ST.
