The abuse of the Rules of Procedure to prevent the transfer of power is political violence

VMRO-DPMNE’s  accusations of political violence are undoubtedly inconsistent, because this party implements such type of violence in the Parliament (but also via the President Ivanov) only to prevent tranquil transfer of power to the parliamentary majority. Also, according to a great number of experts and lawmakers themselves, it violates both the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure.

 

 

The party issued a press release after Nikola Gruevski‘s (its president) talks (1 May 2017) with the US high official Brian Hoyt Yee, which contains elements of untruthfulness and inconsistency:

 

VMRO-DPMNE reckons that the political violence against the Constitution, the laws and the Rules of Procedure perpetrated by SDS caused wrath, whereas the intonation of the Albanian anthem in the Macedonian Parliament was an additional provocation. All of that ended with illegal attempt for election of the Speaker beyond the bounds of every procedure, after the officially closed session, without official minutes, shorthand transcripts, without opportunity for the MPs to speak, beyond the bounds of the Rules of Procedure, the laws and the Constitution

 

 

EXPLANATION:

The US high official Hoyt Yee arrived in Macedonia in an attempt to assist in finding tranquil political solution to the crisis that culminated with the violence in the Parliament caused by supporters of VMRO-DPMNE’s positions. He held talks with the leader of this party, Nikola Gruevski, which were followed by a press release/statement that the reason for the incident was “the political violence against the Constitution, the laws and the Rules of Procedure by SDS…”

The press release contains great deal of untruthful sections, and it is also inconsistent from the legal viewpoint. The wider domestic and international public has already grasped the substantial reason why this press release is untruthful and inconsistent – the refusial to allow tranquil transfer of power. Further, the investigation is yet to determine who and how has ordered and incited the violence against the lawmakers, who and how has opened the Parliament’s doors and why the police, i.e. its chiefs failed to react – was it on purpose or was it poor professional estimation?

But, when VMRO-DPMNE, i.e. its leader Nikola Gruevski state all of this, then it’s a matter of inconsistency, at least.

The reasons can be found in the Constitution, the laws and the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament, which according to every other political party in the Parliament, except VMRO-DPMNE, and also according to numerous legal experts and great deal of the domestic and international public, have been abused by Gruevski and the President Ivanov to prevent transfer of power.

Because the expert and political opinions on the ways Ivanov violates the Constitution and doesn’t entrust the mandate to the leader of the parliamentary majority have been widely circulated, we are going to elaborate a bit more on the Rules of Procedure this time. There are two diametrically opposed opinions.

The first one is represented by VMRO-DPMNE. The party refers to the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, i.e. important for them is the chairperson of the session and also that it would be impossible to move to another item in the agenda if all discussions on the current item haven’t been exhausted. And the current item is the election of the members and the president of the Committee on Elections and Appointments. Their greatest argument is Article 80, Paragraph 2, which states that “The debate shall be open until the list of parliamentarians who have registered to take the floor has been exhausted”.

On the other hand, the MPs of the parliamentary majority refer to the provisions од Article 78, Paragraph 2, which states that “In the course of the session, and upon a proposal by the president of the Assembly, the proponent, or a member of the Assembly backed by at least ten (10) other members of the Assembly, the Assembly can decide without debate to change the order of enlisted items in the agenda, i.e. to hold a single debate on related items.

During the 20 sittings of the constitutive session which began more than a month and a half ago, VMRO-DPMNE’s MPs had been filibustering i.e. obstructing the Parliament’s work by registering about fifty debaters to take the floor and discuss the election of the Committee on Elections and Appointments. They had also been announcing that the session will last until all discussions are exhausted, and over the course of 20 effective sittings, only four or five debaters have ended their discussions, which actually means several-months-long obstruction. In this way, transfer of power cannot occur, which means that Rules of Procedure’s provisions are interpreted for the political interest of VMRO-DPMNE.

Hence the right of the parliamentary majority to present its explanations and argumentations regarding the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. Here we can pinpoint Goran Misovski’s explanation as the last one after the violence that Thursday, but also other interpretations, for instance Venko Gligorov’s and Stojan Andov’s, as well as the positions of many other persons that are competent to advocate stances on this issue.

Therefore, taking into account the aforementioned, VMRO-DPMNE’s  accusations of political violence are undoubtedly inconsistent, because this party implements such type of violence in the Parliament (but also via the President Ivanov) only to prevent tranquil transfer of power to the parliamentary majority. Also, according to a great number of experts and lawmakers themselves, it violates both the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure. Thus, the antipode given as some kind of VMRO-DPMNE’s interpretation regarding the violence in the Parliament, is inconsistent at the least.

 

 

SOURCES:

 

Assessed by: Teo Blazhevski


This article was created within the framework of the Project to increase the accountability of the politicians and political parties Truthmeter implemented by Metamorphosis. The article is made possible by the generous support of the National Endowment for Democracy(NED) and The Balkan Trust for Democracy (BTD), a project of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, an initiative that supports democracy, good governance, and Euroatlantic integration in Southeastern Europe. The content is the responsibility of its author and does not necessarily reflect the views of Metamorphosis, National Endowment for Democracy, the Balkan Trust for Democracy, the German Marshall Fund of the United States, or its partners.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *