External Democracy Promotion in Post-Conflict Zones - Evidence from Case Studies: Macedonia

Abstract

Macedonia experienced a short conflict between the Albanian National Liberation Army (NLA) and the Macedonian security forces, which took place between February and August of 2001. The following examination of the outcome of the international intervention encompasses the issues of democracy, state capacity, and security.Firstly, regarding the establishment of democracy, the two largest Macedonian political parties and the two largest Albanian political parties signed the Ohrid Framework Agreement, which put an end to hostilities in August 2001. Up to 2006, the Macedonian government had made significant progress in implementing the main components of the Ohrid Framework Agreement. The adoption of a new law regarding territorial organisation initiated the process of decentralisation of competencies from the national to the municipal level. This granted municipalities a high degree of self governance in the areas of public services, urban and rural planning, environmental protection, local economic development, culture, local finances, education, social welfare, and health care. Moreover, the Ohrid Framework Agreement improved the access of ethnic minorities to state institutions by calling for a set of measures to improve equitable representation.Special new parliamentary procedures, the so called ‘double-majority’, ensured that laws which directly affected ethnic minorities could only be passed with a majority of the votes from those ethnic minorities. The Framework Agreement also improved the use of minority languages and symbols in state institutions. The NLA disbanded in 2001, and the NLA leadership created a new political party, the Democratic Union for Integration (DUI), which formed a government coalition with other Macedonian political parties between 2002 and 2006.Secondly, Macedonia implemented a process of decentralisation and public sector reform aimed at improving the capacity of state institutions. This process was promoted and supported by Macedonia as a move towards meeting the Copenhagen Criteria. As a result, the European Union granted Macedonia the status of a candidate country in late 2005, which was a great success considering that Macedonia had been on the brink of large scale civil war only four years earlier.Thirdly, in terms of security, the situation in Macedonia has remained largely peaceful since the end of conflict in 2001; although minor incidents of violence have taken place. The NLA ceased to exist, and the Macedonian government disbanded their paramilitary units, which had been created during the conflict in 2001.How can this outcome be explained? In order to understand the outbreak and the subsequent cessation of fighting in 2001, the impact of neighbouring countries and the spill-over effects have to be taken into account.The NATO intervention in 1999, and the subsequent establishment of an international protectorate in Kosovo, created an opportunity for the NLA to start an insurgency in Macedonia. The Kosovo War created a class of entrepreneurs of violence, who had gainedfighting experience in Kosovo, and who controlled illegal activities on the border between Macedonia and Kosovo. These entrepreneurs had the financial and political resources to attack Macedonian state institutions. The outbreak of hostilities in Macedonia also coincided with the outbreak of fighting in Southern Serbia.However, NATO, the CSCE/OSCE, the United Nations, and the European Union had a track record of almost a decade of conflict prevention in Macedonia. Consequently, the international community already had the structures in place to react quickly to the outbreak of conflict in early 2001. In addition, the international community could not afford to allow Macedonia to slide into civil war, because a large scale war in Macedonia would have jeopardized the political stability in neighbouring Kosovo.The international community appointed special envoys who were responsible for brokering the Ohrid Framework Agreement. The European Union made a clear commitment to granting Macedonia full membership, if Macedonia implemented the Ohrid Framework Agreement and the reforms required by the Copenhagen Criteria. This process was supported by international aid, which covered the bulk of the financial costs. The European Union, NATO, and OSCE also maintained missions in Macedonia which monitored and facilitated the implementation of the Framework Agreement.Finally, the Macedonian government argued that the international community had put pressure on it not to crack down on the Albanian insurgency. It also complained that it had to implement unpopular reforms regarding decentralisation and the use of minority languages, in order to meet the criteria for membership in the European Union. Metaphorically speaking, the international community played three roles: scapegoat, watchdog, and guide dog.