(Is) MRT part of the reform bargain
Aleksandra M. Mitevska
The absurdity that has been played around the Macedonian Radio Television today depicts the whole absurdity of the political life in the state, in a situation when the Government that declares itself as a reformer, is in a position to negotiate support for reforms with the opposition party, which, in turn, boycotts parliament. It is about that same Parliament that is the founder of MRT, and in which the majority are now MPs of SDSM and DUI. But in this case, we witnessed that the parties that make up the parliamentary majority, which is thin and variable, do not actually have a majority in the Public Service Program Council.
SDSM, as the largest ruling party, seven months after the change on the helm on Ilindenska, actually does not have its own representatives in the MRT Program Council. Therefore, its coalition partners from DUI are represented there with their representatives – “forgotten” from the time of the partnership with VMRO-DPMNE. It was they who made a quorum for the former (senior) chairman of MRT to survive, at least for the time being, the change of power. What are the reasons for this, we can only guess. Just as it can only be assumed whether SDSM suits this “mathematics”, since the main ruling party will probably need to deliver certain concessions in relation to the main opposition party, with which is negotiating ‘tête-à-tête’ for supporting the reform package.
MRT may not be a priority in the reform plan, but it is not excluded that it may become one of the concessions that will be made. Because, if SDSM could ask for a change in the editorial function of the informative program before the parliamentary elections in 2016, why should VMRO-DPMNE not now ask for position in the informative program, in order to maintain the influence on the editorial policy of the public service? At least until the Government drafts the new law on audiovisual services and does not submit it to the Parliament, which, in turn, knows when to adopt it in light of the “barricades” imposed by the tens of thousands of amendments to the Law on the Use of Languages, the VMRO-DPMNE boycott, and the blockade of certain committees led by opposition MPs. Such is, for instance, the Commission for Elections and Appointments that SDSM “wholeheartedly” left to Ilija Dimovski, where they would have been able to, at least temporarily, (before approving the re-election of Cvetkovski) replace at least those members (four out of 11) of the MRT Program Council for which the Association of Journalists claims that they were elected illegally at the time, because they were holders of public office in the past five years. Among them, there are two former MPs of VMRO-DPMNE.
And it’s not like the parliamentary majority cannot go around the MP of VMRO-DPMNE to convene a session of the Home Commission, and propose dismissal of certain members of the Program Council.
The head of parliament has the official opportunity to allow unblocking of the work of any committee, but the parliamentary majority, in this case, simply did not do this. The dilemma is whether this happened for banal or for practical reasons – in the name of DUI’s old partnership with VMRO-DPMNE, or in the direction of the consensus that should be built with the opposition? Except that MRT should not be collateral damage to that consensus!
Because, it is time to finally enable real reform of the public sector, in order to strengthen its independence and professionalism, and not be merely the declarative commitment of every opposition party – until it comes to power. In this case, it is naive to believe that such a reform can be achieved with the old managerial structure in the high building of MRT. However, Cvetkovski remains its chairman for the time-being (and who knows until when), six years after his entry, as staff of VMRO-DPMNE.
In fact, the name and surname of the chairman of MRT, as well as his seniority in office, would not have been such a problem if, in the past six years, the program policy of his editorial team was not strongly criticized by the former opposition, and by most of the public, as biased, non-impartial and party-colored. And this, of course, is unacceptable for a public service!