Erwan Fouéré: CONFRONTATION IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR DIALOGUE

By embracing this criticism, by embracing this challenge of dialogue, the Government of the day emerges enriched from independent thinking and it creates a much more positive atmosphere for consensus between all the political parties and all actors in society

H.E. Amb. Erwan Fouéré

My task, I think, is a very simple one; I don’t want to repeat many of the considerations that we have emphasized over the years in emphasize the importance of political dialogue of this topic. But, I really feel that the organizers have done a great service by launching this initiative and having brought together all the many actors in society, because it will help, I am sure, to emphasize, once again, how important the dialogue is for any democracy, in particular for democracies that are facing some critical historic objectives, some critical moments in their history, as is the Macedonian situation. Because, this country has in front of it some vital priorities for the future of the country, which is accession to NATO and to the EU and therefore this presupposes a very high level of political dialogue to ensure success.

Political dialogue must be part of the normal democratic process and if you look at examples of democracies weather in EU or outside, also in post-conflict societies, dialogue is the only way to move forward for any country to achieve its objectives for political stability and economic and social development. And this dialogue must be not just at leadership level, but also at all other levels, at the level of civil society, at the level of the social partners, business community and other grassroots level perhaps at the level who matters most, at the level of the citizens. But, of course, the example must come from the leadership. If there is no political dialogue at the leadership level, then this automatically creates a difficult and indeed confrontational atmosphere at other levels.

What is the situation in the Macedonian context? Certainly, as the European Commission progress report of last October highlighted, we have seen some significant progress in terms of political dialogue in the Parliament, where there are regular meetings of the party coordinators which helps to more promote a smooth and more efficient running of Parliament. We’ve also seen now growing examples of public hearings, where civil society organizations are invited to give their views and we do hope that this will continue.

But, we still are faced with a deficit in terms of dialogue at the political level. I think no one can deny the fact that it is sad reflection of the dialogue that the leaders of the political parties don’t meet regularly. And if you remember, and I said this at the European Parliament last January, the Foreign Affairs Committee, the lunch that I hosted in December for all the political party leaders including the Prime Minister, this was the first time they had all got together in the same room since the previous July. We believe that really meeting between the party leaders should be not just at times of crises, but should be a regular part of the democratic process. And if it becomes a regular part of the democratic process, then we have immediately a much less confrontational atmosphere in society in general. Because if society sees that the leaders are giving the example by meeting, by discussing, they don’t agree of course on things, but at least they meet and they have regular discussions on different issues, this also helps to create a more positive atmosphere at the other levels and helps to insure a level of dialogue which really promotes much more open relationship between all the political factors, parties, civil society organizations etc. Unfortunately, what we see here is that the dialogue takes place between leaders not directly, but through the media, where they exchange recriminations and this is not a good healthy sign of a functioning democracy.

So, our appeal is, and I do hope that this would be one of the issues to come out from this forum is that dialogue should be intensified between the political leaders, and should be seen as a part of the normal democratic process, and thus creating a much more positive environment conduce of to building a consensus and, as I mentioned at the beginning, to achieve historic objectives, consensus between the political parties is vital.

If you look at the example of Slovenia when it was preparing to join for the EU, there was a consensus between all the parties. My own country Ireland, also, before we joined in 1973, there was a consensus between all the parties, how can we together achieve the objective of EU integration.

And it is quite clear that Macedonia has in front of it some critical choices with regard to reforms, with regard to achieving the objective of integration and with regard to the name issue. And the best way to resolve this is by trying to find common ground between all the political parties. And, of course, the example must come from the leadership. And the more the leadership has power the greater the responsibility to lead by example. So, if we have this political dialogue at the leadership level, then at the level of civil society organizations it should also flow as a natural consequence of this more positive environment at the leadership level. And this will also avoid what we have seen in the recent past of criticisms, intimidations, even questioning the integrity of civil society organizations that are doing their work like anybody else.

And it really is important that all sectors of society should see constructive criticism as being the bellwether of a healthy democracy. And weather it comes from the business community, civil society or the media, it is of course the responsibility of the Government to listen and to even accept such criticism and this should be seen as a sign of strength rather then of weakness.

Unfortunately, sometimes we see in some examples where those who criticize are immediately regarded as an enemy of the state, and this is unfortunate because again it adds to this confrontational atmosphere and it is not necessary, because by embracing this criticism, by embracing this challenge of dialogue, the Government of the day emerges enriched from independent thinking and it creates a much more positive atmosphere for consensus between all the political parties and all actors in society. And here we have some excellent opportunities for that, and there is the National Council for European Integration which is precisely there, representing all sectors of society, which is there to promote this spirit of consensus.

So, my message, modest one, is really to emphasize the advantages of an open dialogue in bringing the spirit of consensus, and I’ve seen it in many cases in South Africa, in my own country Ireland, in Latin America also, where the only way to resolve difficult situations between political parties is through dialogue. And, as Nelson Mandela himself, said so often: if you want to find a spirit of consensus you must learn to negotiate with your political opponents, you don’t just negotiate with your friends. You negotiate with your opponents in order to find a compromise and achieve the spirit of consensus that will bring the country forward to achieve its objectives of EU and NATO integration in the best way possible, and as I say this will really be a win-win situation for all concerned.

(H.E. Erwan Fouéré is the Special Representative of the EU and Chief of the EU Delegation to the Republic of Macedonia)