Sunday, 27 September 2020 | News today: 0

Avoiding an agreement does not mean evading elections


Columnist: Nenad Mircevski


The “bulldozer” came and left. Victoria Nuland did not spend more than an hour talking to political parties leaders. So much for the long-desired foreign direct assistance to Zaev and his collaborators in their aim to topple the government by using violence. In the one hour devoted to Macedonia, Nuland underlined she has worked along with EU Commissioner Johannes Hahn on the 2 June package agreement. The package with conclusions that Soros’ media and Zaev’s councilors puked on, including the commissioner, calling it corrupted and paid by Gruevski.

At first, they used to think wiretapped conversations and foreign services will help them topple the government, than they been asking for ambassadors to help them, followed by asking for involvement of the international community. They have been praying for Hahn’s help, than they hoped for Nuland’s… Eventually, one big ‘nothing’. They got the same message from everyone – problems must be overcome with dialogue, and the 2 June agreement must be respected. Ergo, elections in April must take place. Time shall tell how that happens…


After IRI’s defeating poll, Zaev and SDSM have come to realize the effect of their ‘bombs’ equals zero. In order to cushion the disappointment, Soros’ mercenaries are selling the thesis that SDSM’s disastrous poll rating was not a reflection of the real picture because citizens are still afraid to say their opinion openly. On the other hand, those same Soros’ media published a poll of the same institute which says that the prime minister’s popularity was at the lowest level ever. So, citizens – on one hand – had enough courage to say openly they do not give support to the prime minister for another term in office, but – on the other hand – they were scared to say they give their support to Zaev. Infantile and naive, but whoever wishes to buy it – go ahead… The problem is that the comparison from the poll is between Gruevski and Gruevski. None of Soros’ media did not compare Gruevski’s rating (although decreased) with Zaev’s rating, or with the rating of any other opposition politician. We all know the reasons for it. Neither SDSM, nor its public opinion agencies published the rating of the man the opposition proposes for an alternative for the prime minister. It’s not that they do not know it.


Gruevski had to fall at all costs, and the people’s will was not important at all. It is not important that the incumbent prime minister is supported by 500.000 voters, it is not important that 100.000 citizens supported him at the party rally two months ago. It is not important that he has substantial lead in all polls. The only thing that matters, according to them, was that a certain group of citizens – that are definitely a minority at the moment – did not like his governing and therefore the prime minister should step down not just from the prime minister’s seat, but also from the party leader position. It does not even matter that the opposition has neither the capacity, nor the a vision to take over the government and to take the country ahead. Furthermore, this latest ‘wise’ move of the opposition might return to them as a boomerang if they manage win back the government some day…


Gruevski had to fall, but there must be no elections. At least not in the next 1-2 years so that the room for free and democratic elections could be prepared. By that time, we will hear all kinds of nonsense by Zaev, and we shall let the country to sink. Why does SDSM find such scenario suitable? The reasons are evident. They do not know another way.


But, that is not all. Opposition supporters’ wishes have no end. Gruevski’s resignation had to be accompanied by criminal charges, followed by his incarceration. At the same time, if the court dared put Zaev on trial, or – God forbid – detain him for disrespecting court decisions, there would have allegedly been a fierce response by the opposition. Let’s go through it again: who is pressing the judiciary? Who makes a verdict before the court assesses the evidence? Who refuses to show up on a public hearing where citizens can see all the evidence in the “Putsch” case? Who would benefit from these interventions in the judiciary? Can we allow for anyone to be above the law? Does anyone have the right to impose that to citizens?