Macedonian, published in English, 160 pages, price 5 euro


"Bearing in mind the geographical position of Europe – from the Atlantic coast to the Urals and Georgia – the SEE is not a correct abbreviation since its position is not Southeast Europe, but Central-South Europe. For obvious reasons it is not to be recommended to be oblivious about the toponymy in this area, or replace it with geographical euphemisms. However, if one does so, one should be correct at least. Consequently if someone likes to circumvent the toponym “Balkans” for various reasons and to rename the Peninsula some other way, then Central-South Europe is the geographically correct term. CSE – Central South Europe includes the following countries with the respective populations: Albania – 3,500,000; Bosnia and Herzegovina – 4,000,000; Bulgaria – 8,000,000; Croatia – 4,000,000; Greece – 10,000,000; Macedonia – 2,100,000; Moldova – 4,500,000; Romania – 22,000,000; Serbia and Montenegro – 10,000,000; Slovenia – 2,000,000 and Turkey – 70,000,000. The total population is more than 139,000,000.
The Balkans as a whole, and including each and every country, are multiethnic, multicultural and multi-confessional as much as is the rest of Europe. Unfortunately enough, this situation, unlike Europe, with the exception of Spain and Ireland, provokes serious political problems. Regardless of the various models of their constitutions, each and every Balkan country recognizes its multiethnic nature. Each and every country is populated by one majority and one or more ethnic minorities. Usually the name of each country corresponds to the name of the respective ethnical majority. In most cases if not in all, the minorities are agglomerated along the border with the countries where these minorities represent majority. Besides this configuration of the minorities, there are some minorities such as the Roma,Vlachs and Gagauses, which do not have their own countries of domicile and are all situated much more randomly. As for the Roma and Vlachs, they live in almost all Balkan countries." (from the book)


LET US REVISIT THE “UNLEARNED LESSONS” OF THE PAST
MORE OFTEN!



I have read various texts on the issues of politics. I have read studies on the world’s global problems, on the issues of European politics, as well as on the regional politics here, in the Balkans.

I have read political studies that stand out with their cold academic style and quite pedantically describe the object of research and the methods by means of which it will be or has been carried out. I have encountered texts, where the presence of the author and their political bias have been so pronounced, that such studies can hardly pass for science, even when that science is called political science.

The text presented here, though of a relatively small volume, is remarkable for its particular syncretism.

The political presence of the author is obvious and requires no proof, but along with that, or despite that, he manages to remain within the framework of scientific research owing to his broad culture and writing talent. Only the powerful talent of a writer can smelt and amalgamate in such an organic (and not eclectic!) manner those at first glance incompatible qualities, i.e. the unbiased objectivity of the scientific researcher and his definite political presence, the rigorous internal logic of the material and the frivolous metaphorical language via which it is presented, the serious science and the brisk journalistic style of exposition...

Only a researcher of broad general culture can apply so easily and successfully the comparative method in investigating similar phenomena and processes in the different Balkan countries in order to grasp the common, that recurs everywhere, and the specific, that remains unique for each individual country.

The book abounds in brilliant analyses of events that were fateful for our region in the last decade of the 20th Century. Why, for instance, did the Yugoslav federation collapse and why did its downfall take such a tragic turn?

We are all aware that due to the rupture between Stalin and Tito (1948 – 1953) Yugoslavia persisted as the most liberal communist state. For us, the young people from the Soviet bloc, it was almost as good as a West European country. It was not accidental that everybody, who was about to defect to the West, headed for Bulgaria’s border with Yugoslavia. Nor is it accidental that the author of this book terms it “quasi communist”. It was truly such. Its citizens held green passports and could travel all over the world, something that was absolutely denied to us, the subjects of the Soviet bloc states.

That is precisely why during the disintegration of the communist system in Europe it was a great mystery for us why the most liberal communist state parted with communism in the most cruel and sanguinary way, involving bloodshed in civil wars rooted in ethnicity and religion, which took the lives of hundreds of innocent persons, while over a million people were driven away from their own homes.

The answer that Lubisa Georgievski gives to this question is the transformation of communism into nationalism in the period of break-up. And in this respect his response is entirely in concord with Zbignew Brzezinski’s popular saw that “nationalism is the last refuge of communism”. Perhaps there is no other more striking and impressive confirmation of the veracity of this theses than the mode of disintegration of the Yugoslav federation during the 1990s.

But the author offers us his keenest and most luxurious analyses, when he discusses the myths and mythologies of the Balkan nations, and the political myths in particular. One should have, inter alia, substantial culturological background in order to interpret this fine matter in such a profound and keen manner. As a scientific researcher he is well aware that these myths came about because people needed them, rather than by accident. Through them people identified themselves with their community and found what is now fashionably termed their identity. Along with that he warns us about the dangerous role that the myths and national mythologies of the Balkan peoples can play, when, by involving propaganda, they are harnessed to work for certain private or group corporate and partisan interests.

But perhaps from the perspective of political pragmatism, or rather pragmatic politics, the demystification of myths would be of particular interest. “Is this possible?” the author asks rhetorically and provides the answer to his question: ”Yes, it is possible, bearing in mind our post modern thinking, which can easily accept the new narrative, provided that it is a story about the birth, life and death of the former one, i.e. of the one we want to commit to oblivion. The best way to conduct demystification is by recreating meta-stories and meta-myths that emerge in a context of abounding rhetoric. Pathetic stories will be ousted by caustic irony, venomous sarcasm and sardonic mockery.” And this is the way to organize the burial of the Balkan myths and their political manipulations.

I took the liberty to focus more particularly on the idea of eliminating the political myths and mythologies, since they are a real and large issue on the road to the unification of the Balkan nations. Unless they are surmounted, they will continue to play the part of one of the major spiritual barriers on the way to free and unprejudiced communication among the people from our region and parallel with that they will continue to play the part of principal fulcrums of isolation and isolationism.

The interest of the reader will be significantly aroused by the idea of establishing a Common Balkan Market, which, due to the very fact that it will encompass 140 million people and will have a 53-million strong workforce, will open broad economic and financial vistas for the Balkan states. This is not a new idea. It has also been launched by other authors, including the members of the Balkan Political Club. I think that it was first thrown in the public domain by Solomon Passy, Bulgaria’s current Minister of Foreign Affairs, who, at the turn of the year 2000 published several articles on this topic. The new element that Lubisa Georgievski contributes in his study is the fact that he presents the idea in a more concrete and extended form that can serve as a basis for the development of future projects.

One may not agree to or accept everything, but as they read this section of the study, they will definitely be compelled to think and to take a stand, since it refers to a very important working idea.

Within this rather short text the reader will come across a host of other original views and ideas articulated by the author on the issues of corruption, organized crime and terrorism, on what the exact status of the relations between Christianity and Islam in our region is, on what the actual boundaries and apetites of nationalism in the Balkans are, and what other trouble it can bring to us.

He makes particularly interesting flash backs that take us way back to the Ottoman Empire, when boundaries were non-existent and trade experienced a genuine boom. The author suggests that today the lifting of the border barriers opens up much broader vistas for trade and economic cooperation in the area of the Balkan region.

The entire discussion is organized in such a way that the reader should be able to draw the lessons of the past with a view to the present and the future at any point of the text.

In his easy and unostentatious manner, i.e. without assuming the role of a lecturing person, the author makes us reread the “unlearned lessons” from our tragic past and learn from them, so as not to repeat the same mistakes continuously.


Dr. Zhelyu Zhelev
President of the Republic of Bulgaria (1990-1997)