BILJANA JORDANOVSKA
The local elections in North Macedonia will be held in October 2025, and political parties are already sharpening their narratives, preparing the ground for another serious battle for supremacy.
VMRO-DPMNE is announcing its biggest victory ever, SDSM is revising its approach after the poor results of the parliamentary elections, while the Albanian political bloc is divided between DUI and the challenges brought on by VLEN and Alternativa. Meanwhile, civic initiatives and smaller parties are trying to assert themselves as fresh and credible alternatives in local government.
Division of local government
The municipality of Cair is one of the key points of the political competition within the Albanian bloc. Bujar Osmani’s (DUI) candidacy for mayor of Cair has stirred strong reactions, and his opponent is the current Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Environment, former party colleague, Izet Mexhiti (now VLEN). Osmani will look to strengthen DUI’s position in Cair, but although being a former Minister of Foreign Affairs with significant international visibility, it is questionable how much local support he will receive.
VMRO-DPMNE considers Shtip its traditional stronghold and is announcing a new mandate with a focus on economic development and infrastructure. However, unofficial polls show a drop in enthusiasm among young voters, partly due to insufficient engagement on environmental issues and urban planning. SDSM plans to nominate a woman with a civic background, which could change the dynamics of the race.
In Ohrid, an intense race is expected between SDSM and VMRO-DPMNE, as well as civic lists that are gaining support due to growing dissatisfaction over uncontrolled tourism and pollution of the lake. There are announcements of an independent candidate supported by environmental activists and the business community, which could change the result in the first round.
The local political scene in Gostivar is divided between VLEN with serious support, but DUI and the Alliance for Albanians will try to maintain their influence through new coalitions. Issues of urban chaos, pollution, and social inclusion will be the main topics.
Faced with two mandates of, first from the ranks of SDSM and then as an independent mayor, Maksim Dimitrievski (who in the meantime formed the ZNAM party and ran for president), the people of Kumanovo will be put to the test – do they want another four years under the protection of VMRO-DPMNE (who don’t have their own candidate, but will most likely support Dimitrievski) or will they return to their social democratic roots?
What about the City of Skopje?
Orce Gjorgjievski as opposed to Kaja Shukova are the players of VMRO-DPMNE and SDSM in the battle for the City of Skopje.
And while Orce, who is the current mayor of the Municipality of Kisela Voda, will “resurrect Skopje” by focusing on traffic chaos, hygiene and infrastructure, Shukova, with the same focus, puts citizens first by offering concrete solutions, before promises.
Review: Questions about accountability and compliance with the legal framework
As the local political scene is heating up for the upcoming elections, the public attention should increasingly be focused on the transparency of campaign financing and the influence of political money on democratic processes.
The June Summary Report of the State Audit Office (SAO), which analyzed the finances of the 2024 parliamentary election campaign, raised questions about the accountability and compliance with the legal framework by political entities. The report itself is similar to those from previous election cycles, showing that no matter how many changes are made to the Electoral Code (or not made), the weaknesses remain the same.
The audit report shows that some of the participants in the election campaign had weaknesses in record-keeping, inaccurate or incomplete data, as well as potential violations of the provisions of the Electoral Code and the Law on Financing of Political Parties. According to the findings, certain political parties and coalitions failed to report donations in a timely manner, while some of the expenses were not properly documented or shown.
The systemic weaknesses in the transparency of the campaign financing should alert the public about the legitimacy of the electoral process, but it seems to have gone unnoticed. The shortcomings are not just technical errors, but create a basis for suspicion about the influence of non-transparent sources of financing on the electoral competition. However, the public is either not sufficiently informed or the indifference is because “it’s still too early for elections”—until it’s too late to change anything.
Insufficiently documented expenses, untimely reporting of donations and incomplete records compromise the principle of equal access to resources. Particularly concerning are the findings among the largest parties, which dominate the media space and have greater access to donations. Additionally, the weak control of “in-kind” (non-monetary) donations (services, space, labor) leaves room for hidden influences that are not detected by the public. In practice, this means that certain parties can gain an undisclosed advantage, especially in municipalities where media oversight is weaker.
And instead of sounding the alarm, the Report passed as a job well done by the State Audit Office, alerting the competent institutions to be more careful this time, especially political parties in their behind-the-scenes activities ahead of the elections. Therefore, it is not wrong to conclude that the risk of further erosion of trust in the electoral process is real.
What did the audit report reveal?
The audit covered the financial accountability of 17 campaign participants: five coalitions and the Levica party (SDSM-led Coalition for a European Future, VMRO-DPMNE-led Your Macedonia, Brave for Macedonia, The European Front, VLEN, ZNAM – For Our Macedonia, and Levica party).
- Lack of completeness and accuracy
Some participants in the election campaign failed to submit complete data. The reports contain inaccuracies and incompletely documented expenses and donations, which violates the Electoral Code and the Law on Financing of Political Parties.
- Paid political advertising
Paid political advertisements were not properly recorded in all cases. There was also a lack of clear documentation for the allocation of state funds and grants for the campaigns.
- Post-election donations
Some participants continued to receive and report donations even after the elections were over.
- Failure to comply with legal deadlines
Some entities were late or did not submit reports to the competent institutions at all.
- Recommendations for reforms and legislation
In the report, the State Audit Office recommended changes to the electoral and financial legislation, the introduction of digitalization of party financial reports, and clear classification and control of donations.
Specific shortcomings by participants in the 2024 election campaign
| Political entity | Key shortcomings determined by the State Audit Office |
| VMRO-DPMNE | Insufficiently explained advertising costs, missing contracts with media outlets |
| SDSM | Delay in reporting donations, partially incomplete records of donated services |
| Levica | Insufficient documentation for travel expenses and promotional materials |
| DUI | Inconsistency between reported donations and bank statements |
| ZNAM | Invoice documentation for printed materials missing |
Namely, the budget for financing the election campaigns for the 2024 parliamentary elections was 386.710.000 denars, of which 244.769.000 denars (63,3% or 3.979.984 euros) were provided by the State Budget for paid political advertising. The largest portion of these funds went to the coalitions “YOUR MACEDONIA,” “FOR A EUROPEAN FUTURE,” “THE EUROPEAN FRONT” and VLEN.
CIVIL in the election monitoring of political financing
When we talk about electoral processes, primarily, in the technical sense of the word, the question arises of how much they will cost. How much from the state budget will be provided for the elections, how much for paid political advertising, how much for relevant institutions involved in carrying out the elections?
One of CIVIL’s priorities in monitoring the electoral processes, and in the context of electoral reforms, is precisely political financing.
The amendment to the Electoral Code in February 2020, with the dissolution of the Parliament, ahead of the early parliamentary elections in July, made it possible for monetary donations and cash donations for financing an election campaign to be paid into the transaction account no later than the day of its closing, that is, 45 days after the announcement of the final results of the electoral process, an amendment made in 2021, before the local elections.
CIVIL prepared an analysis of the political financing for the early parliamentary elections in 2020, whose findings, conclusions and recommendations, only a small part have been implemented, while some could have been implemented in the new amendments and supplements that were anticipated in the Electoral Code, before the elections in 2024. But everything that was anticipated for 2024, as a recommendation of CIVIL but also of the organization as part of the Working group on electoral reforms, did not reach the agenda of the MPs. What they received, after a shortened procedure, was Draft Amendments to the Electoral Code from a group of MPs. The controversial 45 days for closing the transaction account remained, and given that no new amendments have been adopted, it and many other recommendations will continue to linger on.
CIVIL’s recommendations
Given the fact that the effectiveness of the limitation of the amounts of donations is lost due to reasons that the transfer of funds from the regular account to the election campaign account is allowed, to harmonize the amounts of donations that are allowed for the regular account and the election campaign accounts and to disable donations from one individual or legal entity to both accounts.
To take into consideration the suggestions of relevant institutions and stakeholders when prescribing the forms for the reports that election campaign participants should submit to the competent authorities. The Ministry of Finance is obligated to prescribe the report forms, but because the ministry does not use them, does not collect or analyzes them, it raises the question of whether the prescribed forms meet the needs of the institutions that do use those reports.
To require parties to publish their reports on their websites. Even though the law stipulates that parties should publish their reports on their websites, not all parties comply with this provision, thus jeopardizing transparency.
To have reports ensure comparability. Namely, to have a mandatory Balance Sheet prepared comparing two periods. Current reports do not provide information on existing obligations and settled obligations from the previous period.
Institutionalizing these recommendations will help increase accountability and public oversight; clear outlining of party and state resources; systemic mechanisms for controlling and sanctioning abuses.
Additionally, when it comes to budget funding, CIVIL for the Election campaign political parties in the media should be fully returned to the parties that should finance the campaign from their own funds. CIVIL has repeatedly emphasized in the public that the current manner of state funding represents legalized corruption of the media.
Translation. N. Cvetkovska
