Why is that so? Does our public not know how to "push a scandal to the end"? Do our politicians not have a feeling of responsibility? Could it be that there is something wrong with the scandals?
From the point of view of a playwright our scandals lack a culmination, a crescendo, and then an epilogue. They lack something that would inflict the last blow, that will dispel all doubts. Just imagine a crime movie in which we do not find out the identity of the murderer!
The one thing lacking is called the proof. And we usually rarely see evidence. As if no one needs it. As if the catharsis of the public and emptiness it leaves behind were goals in themselves.
Transcripts presented by the SDSM are evidence that someone managed to squeeze into our phone conversations and to listen to our banal or confidential exchanges: the information scandalous and shocking, although anyone who nurtured somewhat closer interest in "state" affairs treated that as a "public secret". The proof, information clear of doubt, is destructive even if we thought that "that has been going on forever". Only one piece is missing to complete the affair "Macedonian Watergate" - the proof about who is listening to us. Not only "knowledge", or guesses, or assumptions... We need a proof. Exactly as the first part of the accusation was proven, that someone was tapping our phones. That must be done by people with a name and surname, who received orders form someone and somehow carried out those orders. That must have been done somewhere, in some room, some address, at some table. If the SDSM is able to obtain the results of the tapping, and that is something that is as a rule guarded very carefully, then it can find out all the details that will draw the outline of the whole story. It is understandable, that evidence should be given to the prosecutor, who already has enough elements to start an investigation. The convincing, key proof will be if the people who obtained the transcripts of tapped conversations show up in court and testify. If Crvenkovski harbors so much mistrust in the functioning of the judiciary, and the evidence for that is that he did not take the transcripts immediately there but presented them at a press conference, revealing thereby all the conversations, he could later repeatedly present evidence to the public. That is a weaker version, but it is still better than a scandal without an epilogue. Facing such evidence, the organizers of the tapping, those who issued orders and those who carried them out, will have to face not only political but also criminal responsibility. If not under this government, then under some future government, because acts of this type do not fall under statute of limitation.
If the business remains as until now, the only backing for the SDSM claims is that "no one else" can tap phones except the state. Because "no one" has that capability. That is correct thinking. However, it cannot replace a proof, because it does not eliminate other possibilities. And in this case transcripts are the facts. Is there another way to obtain the content of a conversation? In theory yes. The first way is if a participant in a conversation revealed its contents, wrote them down, or recorded the conversation. The second one is that it can be done by a foreign intelligence service. The third way is that that can be done on their own initiative by an individual or a group within the country who are in position to tap someone's phone line. They could be working for a state service which has such capabilities (Directorate for Security and Intelligence, Agency, Defense Ministry, Telecom...), but tapping-phones against orders of their superiors. The fact that transcripts were "leaked" is a proof that such people do exist and are referred to in the political jargon as "our men". (In this case "our men" presented something that is in public or party interest, but tomorrow they could reveal something in only their interest or interest of another state, but that is a different topic). Only firm evidence can eliminate these theoretical assumptions.
Naturally, even without "crescendo", the scandal is sufficiently significant that the Ministry of Internal Affairs has to explain, if it claims that it is not tapping phones itself, how it is possible that someone can do so in the state without its knowledge. But that implies responsibility at the level of inefficiency of the Police and its inability to prevent crimes or a crisis within the state institutions and is far from the "original sin" with which the MIA is charged. Nevertheless, that would not exculpate the Minister.
The other big mistake is belated presentation of the evidence, in case there is significant firm evidence, that phones were tapped even during the tenure of the previous Minister, Cokrevski. In normal, "peacetime" circumstances, this evidence would provide a framework for a serious scandal. This way, it is nothing but a decoration, which looses every credibility. By pulling out evidence against Cokrevski now, the MIA, consciously or not, has destroyed it. That is what happens when a bullet is saved "just in case".
by Gjorgji Varoslija
The Prime Minister has the right to decide whether to accept or reject a resignation. He gives mandates, gives or takes away trust. Besides, there was no need for the government to discuss the resignation. That is not in its jurisdiction and it has no formal, legal or true, material influence on the Prime Minister's final decision. However, the fact that the resignation in the end ended up in front of the government members, who unanimously rejected it, allows the Prime Minister to demonstrate to the public unity of his cabinet. But, the fact that the resignation ended up in front of the government is not so bad. What is bad is that by involving the government members in the rejection of the resignation, even though some of them wanted to see the Minister outside the government, the Prime Minister was at the same time allowed to turn them into accomplices in the suspension of accountability of any kind - moral, objective, material, legal... On the other hand, the rejection of the resignation and the explanation that followed not only equally ignored the responsibility and the feeling of responsibility, but also suspended the public. And exactly in the explanation of the resignation the Minister emphasizes the feeling of responsibility for the disturbance of the public and its voice that reached the conscience of the Minister. Therefore by fully ignoring the responsibility and public, the Prime Minister sent a clear signal that his chosen soldiers in the government are permitted everything.
The way in which the Prime Minister ignored the accountability and the public is not new in his behavior. His less then serious statements about extremely important issues, questions and events that lately have been preoccupying and disturbing the public, fit in that framework. For example, after the publication of evidence about the phone-tapping scandal the Prime Minister noted that some pieces of paper where distributed by a party that was almost in power, referring to the biggest opposition party. For the name of the state, he said that the best name would be BJRM, referring to the acronym [FYROM, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the name under which Macedonia was accepted into the United Nations, due to Greece's objections]. Regarding the kidnapping of the A-1 TV crew, as a true joker, what else, he wondered why because of that someone was worried about the security of the state. Daily, there are abductions in the USA and England, but there no one because of that worries about the security of the state. In the midst of a series of nebulous statements about crime generating structures and installations of some former regime in all levels and all institutions of the state, about the hysterical opposition that keeps producing scandals, about media controlled by the opposition and what not. At the same time, the Prime Minister displays a strange obsession with the opposition and tendency to seek alibi and excuses for current events in the state in the actions of the previous authorities. In that manner he is probably trying to hide his own weaknesses, mistakes, and even lack of capability to deal with problems and to release himself from responsibility. For him, it seems, the easiest course of action is to blame someone else. In practice, he is blameless. Namely, regarding the recent events on the northern border, he keeps claiming that the security situation is good, stable and is practically agreeing with the assessment of the Security Council that the security situation is in general stable. There was no need to raise panic the way certain media or the opposition did. The fact that the key member of the Security Council [the Prime Minister] has that opinion is understandable. However, one cannot but wonder whether he is listening to the news, his Defense Minister and the Ministry's spokesperson? They are talking about the endangerment of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country, about firefights, terrorist attacks, series of continuos incident. Has he read the letter from Robertson and spotted its dramatic tone? Does he know what the KFOR commander from Kosovo said in a conversation with president Trajkovski about links of paramilitary units, terrorist and armed groups that operate in the south of Serbia? Is he informed what foreign media report about all that? Does he have any information about the reactions, assessment, and intentions of NATO in relations with this? Or does he recognize in all of that some sort of opposition spirit, that, here, really wants to disturb the population and him, with support of the media it controls?
Prime Minister's rejection of the resignation of the Minister of Internal Affairs, Dosta Dimovska, is a total rejection of the institution of accountability and the slap in the face of the public. The issue is not whether the Minister was good or bad, or whether someone better or worse would replace her. By rejecting the resignation the Prime Minister definitely suffocates the feeling of responsibility. And instead of taking a step towards the strengthening of responsibility and setting up of higher standards, especially regarding objective responsibility, he took a step back. It is in vain to try to prove, especially to the foreigners, to the international community, and even their public, which is very important for us, that we are a democratic environment, that we develop democracy, democratic relations. Who will believe us, especially if he knows even a little bit about the local circumstances? That influences our image, constructs an ugly image of us, rather then the revelation of the phone-tapping scandal, as the Prime Minister believes. Because there is no democracy without responsibility. Therefore, by rejecting Dimovska's resignation, Georgievski missed yet another chance to take a democratic step and establish higher standards with respect to senior officials.
(the author is a journalist)