Context: This analysis serves as an Extraordinary Edition of CIVIL’s Early Warning Report, prepared in response to government reactions following the release of the 2025 European Commission Progress Report on North Macedonia. It highlights emerging narratives that may influence democratic discourse, public trust, and the country’s European integration process.

By Jabir Deralla
In cooperation with CIVIL Hybrid Monitoring Team

When Hristijan Mickoski (Prime Minister of North Macedonia) declared that “we are far ahead of Albania on the path to the EU” in response to the recent European Commission progress report, the remark may have seemed like a simple expression of national pride. On closer inspection, however, it signalled a more strategic narrative manoeuvre: shifting attention from his government’s reform deficits, reframing the EU accession process as competition rather than cooperation, and increasing the risk of nationalist and anti-EU discourse gaining traction.

Prime Minister Mickoski responded to the European Commission’s report not by addressing its substance, but by contesting whether other countries were “ahead” of North Macedonia — as if scoreboard politics could replace genuine reform. He argued:

“We are far ahead of Albania. Even though some European Commissioners have said such things, when it comes to analysing which country is ready, Montenegro is first, Macedonia and Serbia are in second place, and then comes Albania,” Mickoski said, as reported by Frontline.

The statement frames North Macedonia as clearly superior to one of its immediate neighbours on the path to the EU — and, once again, it utterly fails to engage with the subject at hand: the European Commission’s Progress Report.

Diversion from Reform Shortcomings

The government has faced persistent criticism for weak performance across several key reform clusters — including judicial independence, public administration, the internal market, agriculture, and the management of structural instruments. Media freedom was also assessed negatively, reflecting growing concern about political pressure and limited pluralism. The latest European Commission report underscores numerous areas where progress remains only moderately prepared or where no progress has been achieved at all.

By declaring superiority, the government shifts the public debate away from its own performance (“we’re doing better than them”) and toward a comparison game that serves as a distraction from the reform agenda.

Framing Accession as Competition — and the Ethnic Dimension

The statement turns the accession process into a contest of national pride. This scoreboard logic — “we’re ahead of Albania” — invites either complacency (“we’re leading”) or frustration (“we’re still blocked despite being ahead”), both of which erode the seriousness of reform.

In a multi-ethnic country where roughly 25 % of the population are ethnic Albanians and around 10 % belong to other minority communities, such comparisons inevitably stir identity sensitivities. The narrative plays on majority pride — a subtle “we’re better” sentiment rooted in ethnic distinction — that risks overshadowing social cohesion and marginalising non-majority voices. What should be a discussion about governance and reform instead becomes a reflection of national ego.

Mistrust in the EU

If the public accepts the prime minister’s claim, despite the European Commission’s report offering no evidence of such an advantage, a clear framing gap emerges — one that can easily fuel disillusionment with Brussels. Although polls show broad support for EU membership (around 70 % according to the International Republican Institute), those figures blur deep differences across communities.

For most ethnic Albanians, EU integration remains a promise of equality and modernisation; for many ethnic Macedonians, it is increasingly filtered through the lens of identity, fairness, and sovereignty. When the EU process is turned into a comparison with Albania, these perceptions collide: what inspires optimism among one community can ignite defensiveness in another. The result is not only deepening mistrust toward the EU but also a widening emotional and political rift — one that increasingly mirrors the country’s ethnic fault lines.

By turning reform into rivalry and policy into pride, the government risks reducing Europe’s most transformative project to another front of identity politics — a distraction that weakens both democratic resilience and the shared European vision North Macedonia once embodied.

Evidence of the gap

The European Commission’s website still lists North Macedonia’s “key milestones” in the enlargement process but offers no basis for the claim that the country is ahead of Albania. Independent analysis — such as that by the Clingendael Institute  — notes that although reform frameworks exist, tangible progress remains weak. Likewise, CIVIL’s analyses — particularly the piece  “No Bullets, No Borders Conquered by Narrative…” — draw similar, if sharper, conclusions, highlighting how narrative engineering and external influence are used to divert attention from reform gaps. The European Parliament’s (AFET) resolution emphasises that accession is “ultimately a matter of political will” and points to blockages such as constitutional reform and bilateral issues — not comparative advantage. 

By framing Albania into this narrative, the government redirects focus away from substantive reform and channels the debate into one of emotional “patriotic” rivalry — comparing national standing rather than addressing actual benchmarks for EU membership.

Why This Should Be an Early-Warning Signal

When Prime Minister Mickoski asserts that “we’re far ahead of Albania,” he is not merely boasting — he is shifting the conversation away from the substance of reforms and the sober assessment of the European Commission. Because the actual reform metrics do not support the claim, a framing gap emerges — one that opens the path for disillusionment with the European Union itself.

Although broad polling suggests strong support for EU membership, that figure conceals important nuances — especially the pro-EU orientation of the Albanian-ethnic community. Among ethnic Macedonians, enthusiasm is far more conditional, leaving space for sceptical or nationalist narratives to take root. By recasting the discourse into a comparison of “who’s ahead,” the government sidesteps accountability and risks stoking frustration — not just toward Brussels, but among citizens who feel the promise of membership is being misrepresented.

In conclusion, Mickoski’s “we’re far ahead of Albania” assertion is more than a rhetorical flourish — it is a strategic narrative pivot. Without scrutiny, it risks diluting the reform agenda and alienating citizens from both the EU and domestic institutions. It primes public frustration and enables anti-EU and radical nationalist discourse. For analysts, journalists, and defenders of democracy, this is a moment to restate the corollary: framing must match substance, and comparison games must not distract from systemic reform imperatives.