Inter – ethnic Relations, Education and Economic Perspectives of the

Municipality of Jegunovce

March 20th – May 10th, 2005

Executive Summary

Methodology

Final Report 

Economy and Infrastructure

     General economic situation

     Infrastructure/Roads and Transportation

     Infrastructure/Water Supply 

     Infrastructure/Electricity Supply

     Infrastructure/Medical Facilities

     Infrastructure/other issues

     Decentralization

     Recommendations

Interethnic relations

     General situation

     Sources of tensions

         The conflict in 2001 (before and after)

         Unemployment and poor living standards

         Ethnic stereotypes

         Unsolved infrastructural and communal problems

         Political manipulation and personal interests of individuals

     Perspectives

     Recommendations

Education

   General situation

   Infrastructure

   The disputes regarding the school in Shemshovo

   Further perspectives

Recommendations for the local problems resolutions

   Foreign donations 

   Interethnic relations and international grants

   Future development

   Recommendations

AKNOWLEDGMENTS

ANNEX I Focus group reports

FOCUS GROUP REPORT – VILLAGE OF RATAE

FOCUS GROUP REPORT- VILLAGE OF ZHILCHE

FOCUS GROUP REPORT – VILLAGE OF PRELJUBISTE

FOCUS GROUP REPORT- VILLAGE OF SIRICINO

FOCUS GROUP REPORT – VILLAGE OF KOPANCE

FOCUS GROUP – VILLAGE OF TUDENCE 

FOCUS GROUP REPORT – VILLAGE OF OZORMISHTE

FOCUS GROUP REPORT – VILLAGE OF JEGUNOVCE 

FOCUS GROUP REPORT – VILLAGE OF SHEMSHOVO 

FOCUS GROUP REPORT – VILLAGE OF JEGUNOVCE 

FOCUS GROUP REPORT – VILLAGE OF SHEMSHOVO 

FOCUS GROUP REPORT- VILLAGE OF KOPANCE

ANNEX II General result of the preliminary survey 

ANNEX III Questionnaires 

General Question Framework For The Focus Group Interview

Preliminary Focus Group Interview Questionnaire                                                  Download full report (pdf. 655 Kb)

Executive Summary

The municipality of Jegunovce1 is located in the northwest part of the Republic of Macedonia. It is ethnically mixed municipality where most of the inhabitants belong to the two major nationalities present in the Republic of Macedonia i.e. the Macedonians and the Albanians. There are a number of villages within the municipality that are ethnically homogenous. However the number of ethnically mixed villages is also respectable. The biggest villages in this region are: Shemshovo, Jegunovce, Zhilche, Ratae, Preljubiste, Kopance, Tudence, Ozormiste, Siricino etc.

The root of the problem dates back to the ethnical conflict in Macedonia in 2001. Since all of these villages are close to Tetovo (the very core of the conflict in 2001), they were also involved in military activity on both sides. Namely, the village of Shemshovo (Albanians) was one of the biggest strongholds for the NLA (National Liberation Army) and one of the villages that have undergone heavy military anxiety. On the other hand, the villages of Zhilche and Ratae were the base for military activity of the Macedonian security forces as well as the controversial Macedonian security unit, the Lions. In the heavy clashes, there were several victims on both sides that made the situation sensitive even after the ending of the conflict by signing the Ohrid Framework Agreement in August, 2001.

The latest events show that the situation has not been calmed yet, since new developments occurred regarding the primary education in the region. Specifically, the village of Shemshovo has one of the biggest primary schools in the district, where a significant number of Macedonian pupils used to study, mostly from the surrounding villages where Macedonians live. However, after an incident in 2003, the Macedonian parents decided to relocate their children and send them to other schools (in Jegunovce for example which is rather far away compared to Shemshovo). In the meantime, after the Macedonian children have left, the board of the school in Shemshovo changed the name of the school (from Dame Gruev – a Macedonian revolutionary to Jumni Junuzi – the first Albanian teacher from the region). 

This caused additional unrest among the Macedonians, since politically this was unacceptable for them2. After these occurrences, the efforts of the Government, the International community as well as the Nansen Dialogue Center are directed towards the return of the Macedonian children in the school in Shemshovo. Although the local Albanians have made efforts in regards to meeting the requirements of the Macedonian parents (relocating the monument of Jumni Junuzi, renovating and renaming the school etc.) no real progress have been made. In order to intensify the efforts in this direction, NDC needs a deeper insight in the situation in all of the major villages in the Jegunovce municipality. That is why NDC contracted the Institute for Democracy, Solidarity and Civil Society (IDSCS) in order to prepare a methodology that would give a thorough scan of the problems in the region and various modes for their solving. The methodology consists of 12 focus groups (group interviews with the citizens of the villages in the region) and a small survey based on a unified questionnaire implemented according to the ethnic structure of the villages. 

Methodology

The focus groups, as a method of research, present a qualitative method of exploration, where a certain phenomenon is analyzed through the eyeglass of its reasons, current developments and perspectives. In fact, it is a group interview guided by a trained moderator that directs the discussion towards extracting the desired facts, data or opinions of the participants. Every focus group has 8 – 15 participants and last approximately two hours. The discussion is being taped (audio or video) and narrative reports are made based on every group interview. Lastly, an overall analysis (with recommendations for further action) is made, based on all 12 narrative reports as well as a more thorough scan of the overall situation. 

The moderators of the focus groups as well as the assistants are experts from IDSCS. The teams are ethnically mixed, so that the participants of the focus groups would feel more relaxed in front of the moderator that speaks their own language. Most of the focus groups were held in Macedonian language (8 of them) and 4 focus groups were held in Albanian language. The focus groups were held in three consecutive weekends (starting April 2nd and 3rd) in the afternoons, on the spot in every respective village. After the completion of all the focus groups, all narrative reports as well as the situation analysis were incorporated into one overall report that includes recommendations for action. The focus groups researches that are organized gravitate around the following villages that are territorially dispersed in the municipality of Jegunovce and cover the whole territory, with respect to the purposes of the research: 

Table 1: Timetable for the focus groups research

Participants to the focus groups are parents of the pupils from fifth to eight grades (primary school). Each focus group is audio recorded, along with the notes that are taken during the interview. Individual reports on each focus group are made, and at the end an overall report summing the findings is prepared, concerning the common tendencies as well as the differing elements in the focus groups.

FINAL REPORT

Economy and Infrastructure

General economic situation

The standard of living is probably the most important parameter in the overall societal satisfaction that also can be a catalyst in the improvement of different social and political aspects, especially in multi–ethnic communities such as the municipality of Jegunovce. The general economic situation in this region can not be described as satisfactory and this is the overall perception of the whole population regardless the ethnic, religious and social background. Although the general satisfaction3 with the living conditions can be interpreted as median (42.1%) in comparison with the present living standards in the country, a vast percentage of the population (21.5%) is not satisfied at all with their lifestyle often having radical perceptions describing their living as catastrophic. 

The predominant single economical problem of the municipality is the big unemployment rate. This problem is especially alarming for the young population that constitutes the work force, since most of them are not able to find any type of work. Regarding the gender aspect, the perception is that there is higher employment among the women, while a high percentage of men are job seekers. Most of the families in the municipality have only one member that is employed and this situation is even worsened with the gradual decreasing of the wages. In the villages where there is a predominant ethnic Albanian population there is a social security problem since there are a significant number of workers that are practically working without any type of social security. The unemployment problem that has been gaining weight in the last 15 years has sparked another consequential problem - migration. 

The region has seen rapid migration to other regional centers and especially to the countries of Western Europe and North America. This is a general trend for the younger population, although it is more stressed among the Albanian population. Among the Macedonians there is a clear commitment to stay and live in the region as opposed to migrating to other parts of Macedonia, since the general perception is that there are no conditions for prosperity nowhere in the country. However, the opportunity to migrate abroad is perceived as a good chance that shouldn’t be missed. On the other hand, the ethnic Albanians who already have a high migration rate4, besides the option to migrate abroad, also focus on the option to move to the bigger cities in the country. 

This results with more than 30% of the younger Albanian population working abroad. The bad economic situation in the municipality is also visible from the sectoral division of the local economy. The dominant economical sphere (especially among the Macedonians) is agriculture, which for some families is the only source of income. Although some of the villagers see the agricultural sector as a good base for future development mainly due to the quality of the arable land, the overall perception is that agriculture and cattle raising can not constitute a significant factor in the development of the municipality on a short, medium and long term. The farmers are having further difficulties due to the weak state regulation and the low buy-out prices of their products. However, this agricultural dominance is more typical for the Macedonian population in the region, while a vast number of Albanian families are producing agricultural goods only for their own purposes and not as a source for income. Hence, the majority of the Albanians are either working in small firms or are engaged in the construction business.

This situation can be perceived as a result of a reverse process in the past 15 years of transition. Opposite of the general economic trends, the municipality has shifted from a relatively industrialized region to a predominantly agricultural. This change is directly connected with the working of the Silmak (previously Jugohrom) industrial capacity, which till the end of the eighties has been the major employer and biggest source of income in the municipality. The Jugohrom factory, which was the biggest producer of chromium and chromium products in the country, went under bankruptcy in the early nineties, leaving hundreds of workers without jobs and forcing them to seek employment in Tetovo. Recently in 2000 it has been privatized and restarted under the name Silmak. This has been a positive improvement in the overall economy of the municipality, but however the situation is still fragile due to the decreased number of workers and low wages. The most severely hit social group are the former workers of Jugohrom that migrated from other parts of Macedonia to the Jegunovce municipality, which are now without work and also without arable land properties and therefore they can not even count on agricultural activities as a source of income. The employment policy of the company is also generating minor inter-ethnic problems since the perception of both major ethnic communities (Macedonians and Albanians) are that the company favors the other ethnic group5. These types of misperceptions and stereotyping concerning the employment discrimination due to ethnic reasons are spread also in other sectors as well. Such a case is the state policy of employment in the local administration, whereby the perception of the Macedonians is that the provisions of the Ohrid Framework Agreement are in favor of the Albanians who are being employed on the posts of the Macedonians who are rapidly loosing their jobs. 

On the other hand the Albanians are blaming the municipality authorities (mainly the mayor who is an ethnic Macedonian) for negative discrimination in the local administration, but also for not investing into their villages. The general perception of the Albanians is that if the mayor has been an ethnic Albanian, there would have been more employment options for the Albanians. Furthermore, there are fears among some Macedonians that the Albanian businessman, that are according to them dominating the economy in the wider region, will not be willing to employ Macedonians. However, when it comes to possible solutions to this economical decline there are no divisions on ethnic lines. Everybody agrees that the prospects of the economy of the region lie in the establishment and development of small and medium sized enterprises which will specialize in food and dairy processing. The further development of the chromium industry is also a valid option, while a huge majority agrees that there has to be a gradual shift from agriculture into other more productive sectors. Another bonus could be the restructuring of the present underutilized capacities. Some of the respondents, especially in the village of Jegunovce, see the Government’s intention of creating a free economical zone in their village as one of the most promising solutions that will definitely generate growth. Furthermore, there is a strong belief that the economical development and better standard of living will be very beneficial for the improvement of the inter-ethnic relations in the municipality. While the Albanians are more convinced in this thesis, some of the Macedonians are more reserved, while a small number of them (especially in the village of Ratae) tend to have a more radical approach.

Infrastructure/Roads and Transportation 

More than 60% of the respondents think that the state of the roads in the municipality of Jegunovce is not satisfactory6. In general, the road network is very bad with low quality asphalt and being too narrow at some sections. There haven’t been any significant repairs in the last decade, contributing to a high level of amortization of vehicles. Furthermore, during the winter period, the roads are hardly maintained and some of them are practically not usable.There is a widely accepted view that both the state and the local authorities need to increase their investments in road repairs. Also some of the respondents blame Silmak for continuous damaging of the road with its heavy vehicles and want some of the repairs to be sponsored by the company. The other main problem is the rather weak passenger transport communication to Tetovo and Skopje. The connections are very bad and not frequent enough and they can not satisfy the needs of the citizens. While prior to the conflict in 2001 there has been a regular bus line to Tetovo passing through all of the villages, after the conflict that particular line has been canceled and now the whole transportation system is carried out with private vans. However, this type of transportation is perceived as disorganized and expensive. Due to increased competition, the transporters from one village don’t let the other transporters from the other villages to operate in the domicile village further decreasing the frequency of the service. Occasionally some of the villagers in the municipality are using the factory bus of the Tetex textile company that takes the workers to Tetovo where the factory is based. Besides the weak transport communication with Tetovo and Skopje, another big problem is the connection between the villages in the municipality. Most severely struck with this problem are the more remote villages. The biggest problem is with the village of Kopance which is not connected with the villages of Zilche and Ratae. Exceptions from this problem are the villages of Siricino and Shemshovo who due to their geographical position don’t have significant transportation problems and are relatively satisfied. The second biggest transportation problem is the canceling of the railway lines after the conflict in 2001 due to increased attacks on train compositions. As a consequence, the villages from the Jegunovce municipality have lost the cheap railway connections to Skopje and the Western part of Macedonia. 

Infrastructure/Water Supply

Although most of the villages have water supply systems, their functioning is doubtful. The water supply is often inadequate and sometimes in some villages (mainly Ratae) there is no water supply at all. Another problem is also the quality of water, whereby the inhabitants of Zilche and Jegunovce are forced to drink clinically unclean water. The villages of Ozormishte and Kopance don’t have water supply systems and are therefore forced to use water from wells. Another problem which is compatible with the water supply is the sewers system which is practically inexistent. Therefore, during floods there are overspills of polluted water. The conditions of these infrastructural aspects are clearly portrayed in the results of the overall questionnaire7. While only 7.4% think that the water supply system is excellent, 47.9% think that the water supply system is in a terrible condition. 

Infrastructure/Electricity Supply

 The opinion towards this section doesn’t differ much from the previous parameters. The electricity supply is also perceived as very bad, especially in the village of Jegunovce, where there are serious problems with the supply system which often results with temporal losses of electricity. Another inconvenience is the electricity tension, which in some villages is 120 vats instead of normal voltage of 220 vats. 

Infrastructure/Medical Facilities

Although not among the infrastructural priorities, the state of medical facilities that are in disposal to the citizens of the Jegunovce municipality is not of minor importance. The main problem within this sector is the existence of only one ambulance in the village of Jegunovce, which according to the respondents of the more remote villages can not satisfy their needs since it is too far away. An additional problem is the working hours of the Jegunovce ambulance. Since the ambulance closes at 3 p.m., in case of emergency the citizens are forced to go to Tetovo, which in some cases can be fatal. 

Infrastructure/other issues

The municipality in general has a number of needs which are related with inexistence of different types of facilities. All of the villages stress the necessity of sport and recreational facilities8. The weak state of the local and central schools is also a problem which needs to be considered. Among the important problems the municipality is facing is the spontaneous creation of illegal waste areas triggered by the inexistence of waste facilities and an organized litter disposal system. Probably the core problem of the whole region in recent time is the overspill of the river Vardar. This situation results with serious flooding which causes deteriorating damages to the arable land and to the houses of the villages that are close to the river. Since the banks of the river are not regulated spillover regulatory system of the river banks should be a priority. 

Decentralization

The recent process of decentralization in the country can be viewed as a good opportunity for solving some of the above mentioned infrastructural problems. Therefore, one of the aims of this research was to scan the expectations and the level of familiarity of the citizens of the Jegunovce municipality with the new law on decentralization. Although the initial results show great expectations with 50.4% of the respondents expecting positive changes, the overall conclusion should be more considerate. While there is optimism that the process of decentralization will bring new job opportunities, there is also skepticism on the political will to implement the process. Furthermore, most of the citizens are not informed enough and are not completely aware of the provisions of the new law on decentralization. What is also characteristic is the clear division in opinions between the Macedonians and Albanians in terms of support of the process. While the ethnic Macedonians in general think that the decentralization process will eventually improve the overall economic and social situation, the Albanians with the exception of Ozormishte9 (which have positive expectations) think that in reality nothing will be changed since the majority in the municipality council and the mayor remain to be ethnic Macedonians. 

Recommendations

- Providing small grants for establishment of small and medium sized enterprises 

- Providing transparent information on the employment policies of Silmak and local administration

- Donations for improving the road infrastructure

- Set up a regular and frequent bus line to Tetovo transiting through every village in the municipality 

- Restart of the railway line to Skopje

- Donations for construction of a water supply system in the villages of Ozormishte and Kopance

- Donations for water filters

- Donations for construction of a sewers system in the municipality

- Donations for a power station that will provide electric tension of a higher voltage

- Extend the working hours of the ambulance in Jegunovce

- Establish a waste collecting facility

- Donations for canalization of the banks of Vardar river

- Provide more information on the provisions of the new law on decentralization and the overall decentralization process.  

Interethnic relations

General situation

The issue of interethnic relations is by far the most sensitive issue in the region, which is reflected in the findings in the focus groups. It is a topic that is closely connected to the other topics of the research (education, living conditions etc.) and is in a way an indicator and a sublimation of the overall problems that this environment faces. 

When one speaks of the interethnic relations, the positioning of the problem follows the timeline of the political developments in Macedonia in the last decade or so (after gaining of the independence). There are several crucial moments in the relations between the two biggest ethnic groups (Albanians and Macedonians) with the focus primarily put on the very culmination of the interethnic tensions in Macedonia – the conflict in 2001. Being one of the heaviest crisis regions during the conflict, the municipality of Jegunovce went through an intensive military turmoil that completely undermined the interethnic relations. The consequences of the crisis in 2001 are still felt, although the intensity of the distrust decreases. This is the very reason because of which the interethnic relations can be evaluated from two different aspects: previously and after the conflict. 

On the other hand, there are several other factors that influence (mostly negatively) the interethnic relations. One of the crucial topics in this sense is the problem with the primary school in Shemshovo that is more an interethnic problem than an educational one. Being a very delicate topic (if not the most delicate one) the fact that the Macedonian pupils are not studying any more in the primary school in Shemshovo only speaks in favor of the ethnic separation and troubled communication in the region. 

A factor that should not be underestimated is also the structure of the villages within the municipality. As the focus groups research show, there is a very present trend of different standpoints between the ethnically mixed and ethnically homogenous environments. Namely, the ethnically homogenous villages show a bigger level of distrust and skepticism towards the other ethnic community than the villages where people live together in an ethnically mixed environment. In this sense the phobia of the “others” is mostly present in ethnically homogenous villages that are surrounded or border with villages that are consisted of an ethnic group different than the respective village. In the ethnically mixed environments the people tend to value the power of compromise and interethnic consensus, especially in the fields where both ethnic communities find their vital interests. 

Additionally, the stereotypes that separate the two communities mostly follow the thread of the national stereotypes that are present in Macedonia among the two biggest ethnic groups. It is obvious that the stereotypes built among the two communities originate from the very low level of communication between them, especially on the lines of the homogenous environments. 

Finally, one of the crucial moments in the interethnic relations is the economic situation. The general decline of the economic situation in the country reflects the municipality of Jegunovce on several levels. Being highly dependant on only one major industrial capacity (Silmak) the citizens of the region feel the decrease of the economic potentials in the most brutal ways – the rapid downfall of the living standards as well as loss of jobs. Since the economy of the region was additionally threatened by the conflict in 2001, the people of this region feel that the economy is one of the fields that will ultimately lead to interethnic dialogue and better the communication between the Macedonians and the Albanians. 

If one adds the dissatisfaction of the citizens from the living conditions in the region10 it is more than obvious why the interethnic relations are a sort of an “exhaust pipe” where all of the dissatisfaction is located and concentrated.However there are certain positive examples in this respect that could be used to set an example of good neighborly relations. The solution of the problems that are the very source of the interethnic tensions, as well as enforcement of the “good examples” in the region, can become a very successful strategy for improvement of the interethnic relations in general. 

Sources of tensions

When it comes to the very reasons of disagreements between the two biggest ethnic communities there are several general essentials that should be pointed out before further analyzing the problem. First of all, as the overall research shows the interethnic relations in the region are perceived as follows:

- 14,9% of the respondents think that the interethnic relations in the municipality are unsatisfying

- 27,3% gave the interethnic relations a 2 (1-unsatisfying, 5 – excellent)

- Additional 41,4% think that the interethnic relations are median

- 9,9% evaluate the relations as close to excellent (4)

- Only 6,6% think that the interethnic relations are excellent in the region

Having the above situation in mind there are several moments that should be taken in consideration if one wants to pinpoint the very reasons for the tensions, since it is obvious that the trend inclines towards a general impression of poor interethnic relations, rather than good relations. In this sense there are a number of problems that arise and contribute, in one way or another, towards the general development of the interethnic relations. The most influential topics are:

- The conflict in 2001

- Unemployment and poor living standards

- Ethnic stereotypes

- The recent developments regarding the primary school in Shemshovo

- Unsolved infrastructural and communal problems

- Political manipulation and personal interests of individuals

The conflict in 2001 (before and after)

As mentioned before the ethnic conflict in Macedonia in 2001 is the breaking point in the relations between the Macedonians and the Albanians, not just in this region, but in general as well. The municipality of Jegunovce went through serious military activity, concerning both sides of the conflict. This was the determining factor in the inter-ethnic relations, since some of the villages were more severely influenced than others. The presence of military troops was high on both sides that additionally complicated the overall situation. 

More precisely, there are very opposite examples when it comes to the villages in the region. On one hand, there are examples of radical conflict and confrontations, and on the other examples of solidarity and cooperation, even during the conflict. 

The villages of Shemshovo and Zhilche seem to be the most radical manifestation of the interethnic troubles during the conflict. The reason for such an occurrence lies in the fact that both villages (that border) were strongholds for military forces in the peak of the military confrontations in 2001. Shemshovo was the base for the military operations of the NLA (National Liberation Army) in the region, and it enjoyed the support of the local population. The NLA held thevillage during the conflict and it remained a strong political influence (especially several high ranked officers of the NLA) even after it finished. North of the village of Shemshovo, two Macedonian villages are located – Zhilche and Ratae. These villages were the stronghold of the Macedonian military unit called “Lions”. The military unit “Lions” was also widely supported by the local populace. 

However there is no political influence in the post-conflict period by this group since most of the members of the “Lions” originated from other parts of Macedonia. However, the confrontation remained. Since Shemshovo and Zhilche were the bases for radical militant groups the situation during the conflict radicalized with the frequent clashes among these two groups. Although there were no severe damages in both villages, and only several victims on both sides (there is still not a precise number), the hostility between the two villages continued. The focus groups show that the Macedonians in Zhilche (not so much in Ratae) are the most vocal in holding responsible the Albanians for most of the problems that appear in the region. The level of distrust in this sense is very serious, since most of the parents in Zhilche do not even consider the option of returning their children to study in the primary school in Shemshovo. Similarly, the Albanians from Shemshovo (as well as from other villages populated by Albanians) consider the Macedonians from Zhilche as the most radical Macedonian element in the region, stressing that aside from them they do not have any problems communicating with the Macedonians from other villages. 

The communication between the two villages (Shemshovo and Zhilche) is lowered to a minimum, with mutual distrust and skepticism. As a hope-giving example, one must point out the village of Kopance where there is a mixed ethnical constitution. During the crisis in 2001, there were daily consultations and dialogue between the Macedonians and the Albanians on topics concerning the conflict. The result was a mutual agreement not to let the situation in the other villages influence the atmosphere in Kopance. Furthermore, it was agreed that no military forces (on both ethnic sides) shall be let to enter thevillage, since both the Albanians and the Macedonians did not want to influence the situation in any way. The agreement was fully respected and the situation between the two ethnic communities was more relaxed (and still is) than in the other villages. Accordingly, the previous two examples speak in confirmation of the general thesis that the ethnically mixed environments handle the problems of interethnic nature better than the ethnically homogenous villages. However, from a more general point of view, the situation before the ethnic conflict in 2001 was much more relaxed than nowadays. Both Macedonians and Albanians agree that prior to the conflict there were almost no tensions, but that it all changed once the conflict started. 

The presence of the NLA and the “Lions” in the region additionally radicalized the situation that was “broken on the back” of the relations between Zhilche and Shemshovo mostly. Although there is a certain level of mistrust between the Albanians and the Macedonians in the region, the interethnic relations are becoming better as time passes. The conflict in 2001 was a huge setback in this sense. However it did not succeed completely to destroy the interethnic relations, especially in those villages where there was a real constructive communication among the Macedonians and the Albanians. Still, the relations between several villages remain uncertain, since the wounds of the conflict are still to be healed. 

Unemployment and poor living standards

Besides the ethnic conflict in 2001, the unemployment and the poor living standards is the second biggest influence on the interethnic relations in the municipality of Jegunovce. The rapid recession of the economy in the last decade and a half in Macedonia that culminated in the last five years, left an enormous impact on the western parts of Macedonia. The closing of many factories, the troubled privatization as well as the constant lay-off of workers had its impact on the atmosphere in the Jegunovce region as well. Most of the people from both ethnic communities were (are) highly dependant on the industrial sector (Silmak mostly). On the other hand a vast percentage of the population works in Tetovo as the nearest big city (Tetovo is the third largest city in Macedonia). However, a small percent of people is also employed in the local administrative facilities such as hospitals, post-offices, organs of the local government etc. Alternative sources of income providing include agriculture, cattle raising as well as construction businesses, textile and small service enterprises. 

Having in mind the highly limited amount of employments available as well as the desperate economic situation in the region, the possibilities for endangering the interethnic relations from this aspect are more than obvious. Since one of the basic fundaments of the Ohrid Framework Agreement is the equitable representation, many local employments shifted in the hands of the local Albanians. The Macedonians are highly unsatisfied with these occurrences; since they lost the employments due to political decisions on higher level (consequently this leads to a resistance towards the state authority as well as disappointment in politics in general). On the other hand, the Albanians protest against the manner of employment in Silmak, since the perception is that they are not represented equally, especially after the factory continued its work. 

The Albanians also stress the constant negligence by the state in terms of employment and bettering the living standards previously to the conflict in 2001. What is most concerning, a small percentage of people turn to alternative sources on income besides the employments provided by the state. Fewer villagers believe that agriculture and cattle raising are considerable options, since they do not provide large profits. Additionally, the low level of communication between the ethnic communities makes sure that the economic ambient is further traumatized. The living standard of the region dropped rapidly in the last fifteen years. Since the citizens of the region are in a constant search for alternative sources of income, many of them joined the NLA as well as the Macedonian defense forces out of lucrative reasons. This led to mutual mistrust that has its influence even nowadays. However, both ethnic groups agree that they must cooperate jointly, since the bad economic conditions affect everybody equally. Although a generator of crisis, the poor economic situation is, ironically, also a motive for cooperation and a starting position for mutual understanding and dialogue. 

Ethnic stereotypes

The ethnic stereotypes between the two biggest ethnic communities are more a result than a source of the ethnic tensions. However, it is indicative that on both sides of the ethnic divide the stereotypes are almost the same. The most commonly present stereotype is connected to the issue of political control of the local structures of power. Both the Macedonians and the Albanians think that the other ethnic group has more political power and has control over the political situation. Very frequently the ethnic groups are convinced that the “others” dictate and impose their political agenda which is often connected to the political agenda of the political parties, representatives of the respective ethnic interests (which is a proof that the political parties mostly exploit ethnic issues in their political programs). Another very present ethnic stereotype is the one where the other ethnic community is seen as “more organized” and “better structured” regarding especially issues that have a political dimension. In this sense the Macedonians tend to believe that there is certain level of political organizing among the Albanians that gives them an evident degree of collective cohesion which consequently leads to better negotiating and bargaining positions when ethnic issues arise. On the other hand, the Albanians tend to think that the Macedonians offensively impose their political agenda in the political sphere, since they hold the major political positions in the state which once again leads to the perspective that the other ethnic community is in a better position. When it comes to the educational problem regarding the primary school in Shemshovo, the stereotype is that “the other ethnic group is not cooperative” or “wants to gain political profit from politicizing the issue”. A number of the Macedonians are convinced that the Albanians are unwilling to negotiate and offer better security and conditions in the primary school since “the Macedonian children are not wanted in that school”. On the other hand the Albanians are convinced of the political opportunism of certain Macedonian structures since they “want to gain profit from the political dimension of the problem”. The ethnic stereotypes are mostly emphasized in the ethnically homogenous villages regarding issues that are critical (economy, education, conflict in 2001). 

Unsolved infrastructural and communal problems 

There are many problems that increase the ethnic tensions in a rather indirect way. One of these problems tends to be the unsatisfactory lifestyle of the inhabitants of the municipality of Jegunovce13. Most of the people are not very satisfied with the lifestyle in their respective communities, with a special accent on the dissatisfaction regarding the water supply system, the medical facilities as well as the educational facilities. In these terms, the dissatisfaction that is generated from the poor living conditions is translated and projected in the interethnic sphere. 

Political manipulation and personal interests of individuals 

Another acute problem that is often pinpointed as a source of interethnic tensions is the political manipulation that the citizens of this region are subjected to. In this sense both the Albanians and the Macedonians think that they are often “hostages” of the political parties that represent the interests of the respective ethnic communities. Both ethnic groups are very critical towards their own political parties (as well as the parties of the other ethnic group) in terms of exploitation of the ethnic issues in gaining political points. Most of the citizens feel that this populist approach is becoming destructive and one of the main reasons for the conflict in 2001. The citizens in this sense feel misrepresented and actively loose their faith in the political parties. This kind of rising political awareness is certainly a positive trend. The personal interests of particular groups of people also contribute to the radicalization of the interethnic relations regarding certain topics. The participants of the focus group pinpoint these kinds of problems especially in the topic of the school in Shemshovo, where specific groups appear to exaggerate the problem over its proportions for personal or political benefit. Aside from the school problem, the citizens do not seem to think that personal interests get in the way of the interethnic relations in the region.

Perspectives

The perspectives of the interethnic relations in the region are slowly moving towards a positive trend. Although still endangered by numerous factors, the communication in the region is gradually moving in the direction of dialogue and decrease of the stereotypes and the distrust. There are several factors that might endanger these positive trends, and several factors that work in favor of interethnic understanding. If one has to point out the first group of factors, most certainly the fundamental factor would be the situation with the primary school in Shemshovo. The postponing of the final solution of the problem might in time seriously spread the problem throughout the region which means that the polarization15 might take considerable proportions. Although both sides are willing to cooperate on the issue, the interethnic dialogue in this respect seems to be coming to a dead-end. On the other hand, there are several factors that work in favor of the interethnic dialogue. In this sense the economic hardship that the region is going through is most certainly the issue that binds the people from both ethnic communities. Although a very unpleasant episode, the frequent overspills of the Vardar River in the region also help the interethnic dialogue, since the situation is becoming rather serious in several villages where both Macedonians ad Albanians live. Additionally, the interethnic dialogue is definitely perceived as having a positive trend, because of the activity of several international organizations and governments of donating countries, which is widely supported by all ethnic groups. Ultimately, the interethnic relations are moving on the verge of the positive tendency. The role of the common vital interests, as well as certain international factors, in a way balance the tension of the educational problem in Shemshovo that has its ethnic and political dimensions. However, the further support of multiethnic projects and projects that enforce mutual cooperation and dialogue is of a crucial importance.

Recommendations

- Continuation of the interethnic dialogue between the two communities

- Prompt solving of the primary education problem in the village of Shemshovo

- Enforcing the positive examples such as the village of Kopance

- Multiethnic projects involving cooperation between the two groups - joint activities (sport facilities, internet cafes, various workshops and seminars) – with an accent to the relations between Zhilche and Shemshovo

- Donations in joint solving of the infrastructural and communal problems (roads, medical facilities, educational facilities etc.)

- Donations in joint solving of the critical problems (overspills of the Vardar River for example)

- Creating possibilities for multiethnic dialogue – meetings, round tables, debates on local issues

Education

General situation

The different ethnic groups from the villages in the municipality of Jegunovce have a long history of peaceful and cooperative coexistence. However, the conflict during the 2001 created a serious impact over the positive interethnic relations between ethnic Macedonians and ethic Albanians. The conflict led towards total distrusts and breaking of all links between the two ethnicities. The future however is brighter, since the current situation regarding the interethnic relations is going in the direction of normalization and reestablishment of the confidence and cooperation. Nevertheless, some obstacles are still present and education is one of the major issues of the dispute among the two communities. 

Infrastructure

In the municipality of Jegunovce, all villages have primary schools for the students in the first four years of education, but only Jegunovce and Shemshovo have facilities and personnel (teachers) for the next four16. Until the conflict in 2001, the students from fifth to eight grades were attending their classes either in Shemshovo or Jegunovce, in dependence of the distance to the other villages. Almost all schools in the villages were renovated (completely or partially), with the great help of foreign donations (German and American). However, the further reconstruction and modernization of those schools is a necessity, which has also emerged from the participants of the focus groups and it could be revealed in the next table:

Please grade (from 1 to 5) the quality of the education facilities in your municipality?

Table 2: Quality of the education facilities in the municipality of Jegunovce

It can be noticed that almost half of the respondents (46.3%) are considering that the facilities are unsatisfactory or in very poor condition, even though that the other half believe that they are in “good” or in “very good” shape. Besides the school infrastructure, a new problem has emerged as a consequence of the interethnic disputes during and after the conflict four years ago. Namely, since 2001 all Macedonian students (5-8 grades) were transferred to Jegunovce (ethnic Macedonian village), even though for some of the villages Shemshovo is by far closer17. The reason was that Shemshovo is predominantly populated with ethnic Albanians (around 90%).

The disputes regarding the school in Shemshovo

When the conflict in 2001 ended, efforts were made for returning of the students with ethnic Macedonian origin to the school in Shemshovo. However, the parents have had several preconditions before they gave allowance to their children to continue with their education in Shemshovo:

- guarantees for the children’s security

- renaming of the school

- relocation of the monument which was placed at the school’s front gate

After the relocation of the monument, renaming of the school into “Shemshovo” (same as the village) and offered guarantees by the ethnic Albanians for the children’s security, ethnic Macedonian students went back to school in Shemshovo. Nonetheless, after a fight among students with different ethnic origin, the parent’s council decided to retrieve their children from this school and to send them in Jegunovce. They also initiated a new demand for building new school facilities in the village of Zhilche since “they will not send their children again in Shemshovo”.

With the deep screening of the present situation, using the focus groups, it several conclusions can be reached regarding this issue:

- Without any exceptions, the ethnic Albanians are convinced that the returning of the ethnic Macedonian students is a political and not a safety issue

- The people from Shemshovo (ethnic Albanians) are giving the full warranty for the children’s security

· The majority of the ethic Macedonians don’t have any intention to give permission to their children for their return to school in Shemshovo since they fear for their security

- The only solution for the larger part of the ethnic Macedonians is building of new school facilities in an ethnic Macedonian village (mostly in favor of Zhilche)

Further perspectives

The difficulties with the primary education in the municipality of Jegunovce are barely connected with the learning process. They are interethnic and primarily political.

From the conducted surveys in the villages in this region, it becomes obvious that all efforts for restoration of the conditions before 2001, i.e. return of the ethnic Macedonians in the school in Shemshovo, in this moment are almost in vain.

Therefore, several future steps for the restitution of trust among the two ethnic communities seem necessary:

- Organization of meetings and seminars with participations of the representatives from all ethnic groups in the municipality of Jegunovce

(which is already ongoing, organized by NDC-Macedonia)

- Introduction and preparation of several projects for the development of municipality with the participation of all villages

- Workshops for common solutions of the problems with the involvement of the local officials ( local self- government and heads of villages)

- Disclosure and discussion for the political pressures and personal interests from the both sides.

- Introduction of a common agreement for the resolution of all problems in education, which after its establishment can be supported by financial aid from the international community

Recommendations for the local problems resolutions 

Foreign donations

After the screening of the conditions in the majority of villages in Jegunovce, it becomes obvious that the potential of the municipality for solving infrastructural problems is very low. Therefore, the participants of the focus groups when they were asked for the role of the international agencies that are active in the municipality in the solution of their problems had a very positive response, as it is presented in table 3.

What is the role of the international agencies that are active in your municipality?

Table 3: The role of the international agencies in the municipality of Jegunovce

During the past several years many international agencies, organizations and national governments were involved in the improvement of the life quality in this region. In this sense, the Catholic Relief Service (CRS), USAID, International Organization for Migration (IOM), Department for international development (DFID) and the Norwegian Government could be mentioned. Although the majority of the surveyed participants, as mentioned, have been and are satisfied, some serious complaints about the utilization of the foreign help occurred. Namely, during the focus groups and afterwards, many of the participants expressed their disappointment, since a great part of the foreign helpwas manipulated and misused by the individuals who were in charge (mostly from the local community).

Interethnic relations and international grants

One of the most interesting topics during the focus groups was defining the correlation between the international donations and the improvement of the interethnic relations. The response from the participants was almost unanimous. The ethic Macedonians and the ethnic Albanians are determined that the foreign assistance helps a lot for the reestablishment of the bridges among the two ethnicities.

It can be concluded that the financial aid from the international community, which will accelerate the economic development of the region, could be the main instrument for decreasing of tensions caused by the recent conflict between the two communities.

Future development

The last part of the focus groups questionnaire was relied with the future perspectives of the villagers and their children. They were asked: “Where do you see the future of your children and of the municipality in general?” Larger part of the participants was convinced that the perspectives of their children and their own perspectives are in the village. Some of them said that they want their children to leave the country. This was mostly caused by the current economic situation in the region and in the whole country. It was interesting that no one wanted to leave the municipality because of fears for their safety, as a result of the disturbed interethnic relations. The reasons are entirely economic.

Recommendations

The summary of the different information collected from the last part of the focus groups, exposed a variety of problems and difficulties, but also, as a result of those data, some possible solutions emerged:

- As a result of a great number of cases of misusing of the funds by the local contractors, an overall control and supervision over financial

donations by the international community becomes a necessity. 

- Allocation of the funds only for projects from which all or majority of the villages will have benefit. This can be accomplished with preparation of priority lists for future projects

- A necessity of situation analysis before the beginning of the projects. The purpose of those researches is the evaluation of the project’s

outcomes and gains.

- Introduction of co-financed projects between local self-government and the international agencies.

- Intellectual and financial assistance for the promotion of the projects prepared and proposed by citizens from different ethnic groups

- Further investments in the education by the local government with financial aid and supervision by the foreign donors

AKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was prepared and conducted by the Institute for Democracy, Solidarity and Civil Society (IDSCS), with a great support and assistance of the members of Nansen Dialogue Center (NDC) 

The focus group interviews were performed by:

Coordinator:

Vladimir Bozinovski MA

Field coordinator:

Ivan Damjanovski MA

Nenad Markovic MA

Moderators and assistants:

Gorast Stojmenovski

Misa Popovic

Vladimir Misev

Marko Trosanovski

Bashkim Bakiu

Artan Krivenjeva

The final report was prepared by:

Vladimir Bozinovski MA

Ivan Damjanovski MA

Nenad Markovic MA