Judicial Rebellion

Ilo Trajkovski

Sociologist by occupation, I see myself as a scientist. And therefore, in my performances for the wider public, I try to stick to the principles of science. This means, above all, the scientific method. According to Isaac Newton, science is a specific way of examining phenomena, a way of finding out about phenomena or a way of correcting and complementing already existing knowledge of phenomena. The specificity of the Newtonian scientific method consists in reliance on experiential and, above all, on measurably confirmed truth. And the truth is what can be proven, checked and verified visually, experientially or rationally, but in any case with specific measurements. This is so in relation to natural phenomena.

But how should one be a scientist in examining and contemplating social and humanistic phenomena? For instance, how to be scientific about issues of culture and identity! How to be scientific about loyalty! How to speak scientifically about issues related to national consciousness and national aspirations! Or how to scientifically confirm the experiential or rational foundation and correctness, for example, of the conviction in conservative, liberal or communist ideas, or how to measure the sustainability of faith, for instance?!

These and other similar questions always and inevitably arise from the volumetric importance that, when solving social and humanistic issues, has a problem called values. Nothing in the relationship between people in society occurs without values. They are the drivers of human will. The planets or atoms in their movement and their interconnections are not familiar with will, with stubbornness or with priority and interests. But for people, these questions are more important than the given conditions and real possibilities. Me, in the given social, as the most desirable, and priority over all the priorities of the Macedonian society, it seems to me a strong judicial rebellion! That’s right! Judicial rebellion!

This thought is not an objective analytical assessment that such a thing is really happening or is about to happen. No. We are far from it. The idea of ​​a judicial rebellion is, above all, an expression of the desire that some perceived concrete phenomena and behavior of stakeholders of the justice system can be read and projected in such a vision for the future. In a few small steps I can see embryos for a major social change. For the very desired thorough change of our entire life and behavior. For a social upheaval that will redirect the creative forces of young people from abroad to home that will stop the moral erosion and ecological catastrophe threatened by the enormously raised waves of corruption, crime and aggression in general – symbolic, sound, verbal, behavioral , of all sorts.

I see such potentials in the actors of several judicial decisions that are now publicizing the public. Saying this I am aware of the risk and I will be caught in one of the networks that, in relation to them, throw the hunters of the political souls of the citizens in the public waters. But, as stated above, the values ​​in the diagnosis of social phenomena are inevitable, and hence the risks of objectivity. So I’m talking about potential, opportunity, chance, hope, after all. For, what is man, what is society without hope for the better.

From that perspective, I recognize such chances in the pronounced verdicts for the Titanic 2 case and the verdicts for the violence in Parliament on April 27. For some this is the decision of the “Kacarska Judiciary” for others, they are evidence that the end of the “Swarovski Judiciary” has come. Both groups see judges only as servants and whips of political parties. The judiciary for them was, and will only be an instrument of political-party persecution, an instrument for capturing the state and for subjugating the society.

I personally know and met some of the persons that were sentenced in these cases. I’ve had personal ties with some of them as well. And based on that I sympathize with them and their families because of the traumas they went through and will yet go through. Some of the rightfully feel damaged. Their associates were amnestied for their participation in the same events! For this, however, the judiciary is not to blame. Prosecutors filed charges against them, and judges tried and sentenced those whom politicians allowed them to accuse and sentence. But prosecutors and judges, however, have a merit for that. They never rebelled against politics interfering in a legal process and undermining their profession.

The political game with the judiciary continues even after the verdicts. There will be appeals, there will be a “dialogue”, and who knows what else. Now it does not appear that the work is disputable, but the amount of the sentence. According to critics, the sentences are draconian, and this is evidence that there is a party instrumentalization of judges. So in the pronounced sentences one can not see any judicial approach derived from the principle of free judicial conviction, but strict party obedience.

That is how these sentences are seen in the ranks of the party elites. Among the ordinary citizenship to which I belong and the pronounced sentences are read as lighting of a lamp in the dark! Judges show the strength of the law through sanctions. A canceled law is not a law. The verdict raises the belief in the validity of the laws, the social function of the judiciary and the role of the judges. Judges in the given context have a unique historic chance to take advantage of this momentum and to launch a major social upheaval. This is the right moment to twist the current trend of a steep decline in public confidence in the judiciary. To deflect from the clutches of party predators and to lead one, so to speak, a judicial revolution.

No other profession in the country has that potential and opportunity. Here’s why. First, questions of justice, of justice and of the rule of law have long been raised to the highest level of desired values. The motto “No justice, no peace” echoes even today. Justice is the bread of the nation, it is always hungry for it (François-René de Chateaubriand). Secondly, judges compared to professors, doctors, officers, businessmen, writers, artists … and other elite socio-professional layers are the smallest category. Today, after several years of continuous reduction of the judge’s echelon, there areonly about 531 remaining. Thirdly, because they are few and because they perform their activities in a legal and hierarchical system, they know each other and have operational channels of communication. Minority and mutual communication, according to the iron law of the oligarchy, should allow them greater cohesion and effective collective action. Fourth, the judges have built and established a partner network, and it was announced for its enrichment with a new association of judges.

Why would judges enter such a venture? It’s quite simple! If they do not gather the strength to initiate a movement for the transformation of society according to the principles of the rule of law for which they are paid, then the society, or its most advanced part represented in the face of politicians, will finish them off, turning them into party keyrings. The judges will either try as given to them by the Constitution and the laws, or be tried!