Is Zaev’s story falling apart?

Petar Arsovski

In the past period we witnessed even louder criticism for SDSM and Zaev. Even those who stubbornly defended Zaev’s “character and work” a month ago are now directing sharp, public, and personal criticisms. The waves of dissatisfaction seems to have caught up with new government, with an unusual and prominent “critical” enthusiasm. I wonder how, in a matter of a few months, the public who was so committed to political changes, managed to become so disappointed; what are the factors that contributed to such a rapid upheaval, and in the end, where does this new discourse go that is directed to the government?

When we analyze how suddenly there was a new wave of criticism of the new government, we should consider several factors that have an impact on this phenomenon. First, Zaev objectively faces heavier and more complicated projects than his predecessors. If the previous government was satisfied with the general status quo, and without ambitions for anything but cosmetic projects aimed at pure populism, the price for the long-avoided challenges is now being paid by the new government. The huge debt, the hole in the pension system, the tax reforms, the dysfunctional democracy, not to mention the name dispute, are certainly more complicated projects and tasks in an objective sense. So, he inherited a much worse situation and his tasks are less popular.

Secondly, the new government faces a less favorable general ambience on both sides: the public is more critical and remains in a high degree of mobilization, and they do not have previous methods of depreciation available to them. First of all, the criticism that Zaev faces is the result of the newly found freedom of critical thought, which currently functions at the level of permanent hysteria. This hysteria was an integral part of the general strategy for changing the “regime,” but the level of mobilization remained, and now the new government faces highly electrified critics, who do not miss anything, nor keep silent. This is the public that SDSM created to overthrow Gruevski, which should now be handled. Furthermore, the mechanisms that VMRO-DPMNE used are not available to SDSM, there are no government advertisements, no debt creditor relations with the editors and media owners, there is not much room for ordering editorial policies. So, the criticism will continue, and the number of disappointed citizens will only multiply.

Third, Zaev faces a bad management of expectations, after the change of power, which is a bigger problem. It is relatively easy to understand why SDSM during the campaign for change, promised “hills and valleys” in some way, it is understandable inflation expectations necessary in the general project of victory. But after coming to power, it did not carry out any campaign or strategy for depreciation of the “overwhelming” expectations they had produced before, which is inexplicable. Therefore, it should not be surprising when the public is quickly disappointed, because if we return to the pre-election budget, we should have already been in NATO, to negotiate with the EU, the wages and economics, and the state arranged in a “Scandinavian” manner. Well guys, when you realized that it would not be so easy, why not tell us?

Fourth, the objective lack of capacity for “pressing” in all fields makes the new government have to prioritize. Logically, they put themselves on the map of international politics as the strongest game changer. But such a gambit brings a risk that is, putting it on a map of a breakthrough with the name dispute poses a danger for even stronger public disappointment and criticism if the government fails to deliver this year, for which there is a real possibility. Such an all-in approach is certainly problematic, especially when the outcome is uncertain.

Fifth, Zaev faces a very complicated political setting. The majority is thin, the political dialogue is stuck, the ambitions of its own supporters with galloping inflation, and the coalition partners give the impression that they have no understanding about the delicacy of the situation, are making their own agenda and self-promotion. While the official international policy “is eating thorns” for trying to overcome the obstacles in front of us, which is navigating through a real minefield, DUI continues with its populist campaign for its own voters, giving statements as they please.

In the end, the problems of SDSM are not only objective. The mistakes in the steps, which the new government makes continuously, only contribute to a faster disappointment of the public in their story. Just like, on several recent projects, such as attempts to correct the personal tax, introduce VAT for individuals, the old-new judiciary council, the new PRs make substantial strategic mistakes, and by template: they will announce a pompous reform, once there is no to communicate properly, the public will be mobilized against the changes, and they, under that pressure, will publicly withdraw. Such a devastating tactic has an effect on the so-called. “Double nude”, that is, to suffer the damage in the public opinion, and at the same time fail to implement the reform. If they do so, public discontent will explode in their face, because they will spend the old political capital on projects that they will withdraw, which will then leave them free to create new political capital, and so in an enchanted downward spiral.

The new government does not have much time to correct its own approach and strategy to manage its position. Usually, the stages of turning from love to hatred go as follows: (1) Everyone is sympathetic and good; (2) the leader is good and sympathetic, but the people around him are not; (3) all are bad, including the leader. Zaev is in the second phase, in just a year since the takeover of power. Gruevski needed 10 years to come to that stage. I leave the rest to you.