The latest tragic events with the modular hospital in Tetovo and the bus accident in Bulgaria (and previously a similar one in Macedonia) seemed to have spilled the cup of citizens’ patience. Or not anyway? The common sense of readers and the simple fact that no one has yet been held accountable for these tragedies suggests that we have a long way to go to the desired society of accountability and responsibility of political elites. We have to go down that road because there is no going back.
This text is inspired by a broader research conducted by the Forum for Reasonable Policies and which refers to a comprehensive analysis and recommendations on how important political/moral responsibility is for the vitality of a democracy, in this case the Macedonian one.
The lack of a sense of political responsibility is not some Macedonian invention. This democratic institute is related to the political and democratic development of a state, the political culture in a society, as well as the role of the vigilant citizenry against the (intentionally) dormant political elites. We know how to say that democracy is not built overnight and that it takes time, knowledge and awareness for it to take root in a society. But this attitude is sometimes a perfect alibi for doing nothing.
Political responsibility, let’s say it freely, is an integrated and indispensable part of the “gold standard” of liberal democracy. Going deeper, we can also say that resignation as a political act (although primarily a personal act, and that’s important!) affects the finest attributes of democracy: namely, the idea of changeability, the idea of permanent imperfection and the idea of (slow) progress.
Idea of interchangeability. This principle is related to the fact that no one is eternal, neither the one who resigned nor the collective (the government) if it falls as a result of a situation and that something perceived as bad can always be replaced by something else (although not necessarily better, but yet another). The problem is when the other becomes “one and the same”. Then the idea of political responsibility is shaken to the point of destruction. Why should I go when others are worse or at least equal to me? Why should I give them something and they should do the same “nothing” that I do? Why should I leave office for something that someone else did? The one below me, the subordinate, the director, the electrician, the driver, the inspector, the customs officer, etc.
This way of thinking and acting makes the institution of political responsibility impossible. He either does not exist, or is completely devalued, or is camouflaged behind some other type of pressure or manipulation (foreigners pressured him, submitted but did not accept his resignation, petitions to withdraw his resignation, etc.). Political responsibility implies personal credibility, a personal attitude towards the position you hold and a personal attitude towards yourself through the eyes of the voters and the rest of the citizens you represent, whose civil servant you are. It is the idea of changeability that should be the guiding principle for officials to work better, more responsibly, while being aware that they are changeable and transitory at any moment.
Idea of permanent imperfection. The idea of permanent (eternal) imperfection, on the other hand, starts from the premise that in a social system, or a political system in the narrower sense of the word, the management of public policies is a long story about the imperfection of man and his abilities. Governance is a complicated process, especially in the conditions of constant complication of societies, a huge number of services, inspectorates and agencies that fall under a certain department and the constant challenges imposed by the new technological age. Super control over processes does not exist, no matter how much we try to normalize it. And since there is no super control, situations that cannot be controlled (major traffic tragedies, shipwrecks, fires and storms, the dispute with Bulgaria, and even defeat in local elections) and their disastrous consequences must somehow be channeled through the political process. And they are channeled through resignations and withdrawal from public office. By doing so, we show that no one is perfect and that no one can be perfect for us, but at the same time that everyone should be ready to pay for that imperfection. The idea of imperfection is the basis of the idea of changeability, just as democracy is the best of all imperfect systems of government.
Idea of slow progress. The third idea, that of slow progress, is probably the most important and positive aspect of political responsibility. And that is that she withdraws (represents a trigger) or must withdraw if she wants to complete an avalanche of institutional reactions that must thoroughly and in detail address the problem that led to the resignation. In this context, resignation is only the tip of the iceberg, the alarm button calling for action. Inspections, customs, control systems, criminal implications for those directly responsible under the law and for directly corrupt persons (so that they never think of it again!)… in a word,
a general mobilization of all so that such a thing does not happen again. This is about a broad scope of standardization in a certain sphere (for example: public passenger transport) in order to establish clear procedures and standards to avoid all such future potential situations. Institutions and procedures should be built on the basis of previous (mainly negative) experiences, a kind of “building through crisis”. That slow progress is the most thorough progress, even though it often seems to cost us dearly.
The everyday situations and challenges faced by public office holders leave room for a flexible interpretation of political responsibility. Namely, it always comes too quickly, unexpectedly, unwanted. That is why good experiences from developed liberal democracies teach us how to answer the questions of when, how and why one should resign.
When? This is a delicate question because it raises various dilemmas. Why would an objectively good minister resign if he is not directly to blame for an event/accident in his department? Why would the citizens be deprived of his services as a civil servant if a director there was not responsible or made a mistake? In fact, these are false dilemmas. The answer to when to resign is simple: immediately, without thinking! Any delay is buying time and diluting the primary purpose of the resignation, namely to establish a standard for the future and to resolve the issue/problem in a long-term manner.
How? In a way that will lead to progress in the area that needs to be regulated. The process of resignation and its effectuation must be correlated with preparation for dealing with the problem in the future. Otherwise, the resignation will be just a bone thrown to be gnawed by the ever-hungry public, but the caravan of irresponsibility will continue to peak. The resignation must be accompanied by a clear plan to address the symptom of the problem, a plan that will have a beginning and an end, where other resignations, dismissals or prosecutions along the “chain of command” may fall in between. That plan should have its own conclusion by which the public will be informed that the causes of the specific situation/problem have been detected and addressed and that it is expected that such situations will not occur in the future.
Why? Because that’s the only way to leave “pebbles” on the road that will be an example for the rest not only of what they shouldn’t do, but more of how they should do it! Resignation is an act that should teach us, improve us, establish standards. Finally, the resignation offers an easy way out with a “clean face” to the specific official and realistically allows room for returning to public office in the future, sometimes with a big door.
