These two concepts, which appear at first glance to refer to the same thing, are actually only related to each other sequentially – which means, after understanding, comes reasoning. Both terms refer to the intellectual, discerning and cognitive brain activity of the individual. The necessity for successful understanding and reasoning is related to one’s ability to perceive social events, processes, phenomena, and moments as they happen. Reasoning is the use of sound judgment about thoughts and events which are correctly judged in the process of thinking while taking into account the time, place, and situation. One’s ability to use sound judgment is in turn related to the intellectual level, social conditions, education – and above all – the level of one’s ability to look at social events more definitively. Discernment is the ability to see the “unseen” through common sense and recognition of future events. It is an understanding of what is before us in its third and fourth dimensions, which I think I have told you about.

What determines one’s ability to understand and reason is not only the memory and perception of related events through which we comprehend what is happening around us experientially, but is also based on what we have learned. Thus follows the reasoning about the causes, reasons, and above all, the consequences of a specific moment, otherwise known as an occurrence.

The adoption of the amnesty law is exactly such a phenomenon or political-social moment. Amnesty is at least a legal act. In the first place it is a political act that has a direct impact on the social and legal security of citizens. In this case amnesty primarily promotes impunity motivated by political reasons and thus destroys the judiciary as an institution by destroying fairness and justice through the implementation of laws.

Hence, any political discussion about whether or not an amnesty law should be passed is pointless for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is futile from the aspect of social norms, the public and personal safety of citizens, ethics, and the legal system, and finally, the administration of justice and the implementation of laws. It was conceived from the perspective of political entertainment for the people and lucrative reasons for the political elite. This is especially emphasized because it refers to the amnesty of persons who have committed serious crimes against the life, health, and property of the citizens of Macedonia. There is no justification for prisons being overcrowded and operating under substandard conditions. The task of the state is to provide humane conditions for legally convicted persons who are serving a prison sentence to be successfully re-socialized. In this context, a reorganization of the system of serving a prison sentence is undoubtedly needed depending on the gravity of the crime and the length of the imposed punitive measure. This is not an amnesty.

In understanding whether someone is for or against against amnesty, it is necessary to know the parameters I have mentioned above. In order to judge the same “need” for amnesty, it is necessary to understand the context of previous experiences and events, but above all, the consequences for the future.

This is within the context of understanding and reasoning, which is why we, as an intra-party faction, are clearly against passing an amnesty law. In exactly the same context, our position related to the amnesty of those convicted and imprisoned for the events of April 27, 2017 is also crystal clear. In order for you to understand it better and to be able to reason about this issue, I will try to explain it in a few sentences.

First of all, in order to be able to understand the difference between passing a law on amnesty according to the tendency that they are trying to impose on us in the public as a topic, and what I wrote about above, it becomes necessary to know and understand that there is no possibility of amnesty when convicted of the crime of terrorism. The people convicted as a result of April 27th were convicted of the crime of terrorism. This is a legal fact, regardless that it was imposed politically and invented by Zaev. Understanding this, it is necessary to reason about the causal relationships if an amnesty law were to be passed that would cover these persons as well (although we believe that this will not happen). In short, in such a case would also apply to the persons convicted of the terrorist attack in “Divo Naselje”. Therefore, the reasoning should bring us to a conclusion that is within the framework of the legal system and violating it should enable the release of the persons convicted on April 27.

As an intra-party faction, we not only have a very clear and sustained position on this issue, but also a clear legal procedure on how it should be implemented. First, we clearly state our position that persons convicted on April 27 should be released because the law was not enforced on them. Secondly, they were not justly convicted. Their judgment was politically motivated with political goals clearly in play. Therefore, within the framework of the criminal-legal procedure, it is necessary to change the term “committed” imposed by the judicial authorities, the qualified crime of terrorism, into a crime of violence and participation in a crowd.

In order for this to happen, political will is undoubtedly needed through which the repetition of these cases will be initiated with a new qualification of a completely different crime. In that situation, there is no doubt that the perpetrators of these crimes may confess to the same event and effectively show remorse. Perhaps then the new convictions will be drastically less than the current ones for terrorism. In this way, the “wretched” from April 27th will be set free immediately.

But, unfortunately for us, that is not happening. Alhough, it could have been an excellent basis for Mickoski’s negotiations with Kovačevski regarding giving consent to some other political concessions, I really don’t understand how Mickoski intends to grant amnesty to the victims of April 27th. Hypothetically, to do so, we would have to assume that he would be the prime minister, which he won’t be. Will he apply the model proposed by the faction? If we reason in this direction, the logical question arises: “Why didn’t he propose that reliable model for “amnesty” to these people already?”

Here is another moment that leads us to reasoning. Let’s think about what are the motives of the SDS, and what are the motives of Mickoski regarding the entertainment for the citizens of Macedonia called “amnesty”. Firstly, the SDS, has a strong motive in two directions, to please their political partners and to create a concession in the pre-election in relation to the field activity that will be carried out by the amnestied debtors. Secondly, Mickoski aims to continue playing the populism card while assuming the guise of a godly fighter for law, enforcement of laws and a fighter against corruption without the manipulation of April 27. Of course, he desperately needs this after all that he missed and misconstrued regarding the amendments to the Criminal Law and the two key Articles 353 and 394.

With reference to the amendments to the CC, we, as an intra-party faction, strongly oppose and are against this “legal” demolition of the fight against corruption and organized crime. We clearly state that this procedure is a generator of corruption which we have also taken a clear stance against with a policy of zero tolerance by implementing concrete steps in order to effectively combat it . While we have already spoken about this in public and, we will speak again as a faction as the leaders of VMRO-DPMNE, we are ready to lead the country of Macedonia towards the EU cleanly and with transparency.

After all, why didn’t Mickoski set the conditions for not changing the Criminal Law by leaving the assembly? The stories are read to him so quickly in front of the membership at party events that they do not survive even 24 hours without receiving a countermeasure from the government. . . this incompetent government. Just remember his demands when he thought for a moment about entering the government and agreed to the constitutional changes.

As an intra-party faction in VMRO-DPMNE we considered the explanation of the position on the issue of amnesty for perpetrators of serious crimes and the position on amnesty. More precisely, the reopening of the cases of those convicted for the events of April 27 with a different qualification of the crimes committed instead of terrorism, a necessary topic. The goal is to prevent the creation of a theatrical performance that highlighted by populist games, abuse the feelings of all citizens and the “achievement” of mundane goals by some politicians.

The new theatrical performance, which is played out in its entirety, and its lack of inventiveness is actually an intimidation of the citizens of Macedonia. The thesis is argued, that if the second round of presidential elections are not held at the same time as the parliamentary elections, we will have a boycott which will lead to a state of emergency in which constitutional amendments are then to be carried out. This story is so ridiculous that even small children will hardly believe it.

Its placement in the public has the sole purpose of creating fear among citizens of an apocalyptic future. A scenario that, in combination with the amnesty and the drama that we will see, will cloud the clear perception and judgment of the citizens precisely in relation to the changes in the Criminal Law and the fight against corruption.

It is obvious for all to see what they are ready to do just to save the position of soldier Mickoski as the head of VMRO-DPMNE. What is clear and visible, and in two dimensions, requires no special understanding and reasoning in the context of achieving the impossible or even rescuing soldier Mickoski. Preconditions are being put in place to initiate a political crisis in Macedonia at any cost. It is unfortunate for us from VMRO-DPMNE that this crisis is created and generated by our party. Indeed, to overcome and ignore this madness, understanding and common sense is necessary.

To explain the need to understand what we hear, see, or read and judge the situations, the causes and especially the consequences, we could have chosen any event from the current politicst6-[ from the past or the accepted future. However, at this moment, the smoke bomb of “amnesty” that the “spin masters” of public opinion in Macedonia are attempting to use in order to mislead and distract the people while other “apocalyptic” scenarios are being prepared, it becomes appropriate to understand where they are trying to lead us and, to reason why they are doing so. It is what they have been doing to us incessantly for the last 33 years.

 

Oliver Andonov