By Xhabir Deralla

In recent days, workers’ protests in North Macedonia have exposed broader issues of social rights, political accountability, and democratic standards in EU candidate countries. While the demands themselves are rooted in basic economic realities, the official response has raised concerns about the shrinking space for social dialogue and the growing tendency to delegitimise protest by branding it as “political.” Treating survival as a political inconvenience is not just a rhetorical choice — it is a serious risk to democracy.

A demand for a living wage should not be radical. Yet in North Macedonia, thousands of workers were forced onto the streets to ask for precisely that: a minimum wage of €600, a linear increase of €100 for all other salaries, and a rollback of the generous pay rises previously granted to public officials.

These are not extreme or unrealistic demands. They are a cry for basic dignity — for the minimum conditions required for a decent life. They emerge from a harsh reality in which roughly one third of workers live below the poverty line, while the cost of living continues to rise unabated.

North Macedonia is an EU candidate country. That fact alone makes the response to these protests more than a domestic issue. It turns them into a test of democratic maturity — not only of economic policy, but of the government’s willingness to engage in genuine social dialogue.

When dialogue is replaced by dismissal

Over recent months, the government has remained largely deaf to workers’ concerns. Instead of meaningful engagement, the public has been presented with a familiar mixture of populist rhetoric and empty promises — policies that, in practice, tend to protect employer interests far more consistently than workers’ livelihoods.

Trade unions have announced the possibility of escalation, including a general strike. This distinction must be made clear: protests and strike warnings are not the result of a hidden political agenda. They are the direct consequence of systematic neglect.

Workers in North Macedonia receive the lowest minimum wage in the region, while the basic consumer basket has long exceeded the income of the average worker. This dynamic fuels emigration and creates severe labour shortages in key sectors. These are not ideological claims. They are economic and demographic facts.

Delegitimising protest as a governing tactic

Predictably, the ruling party and Prime Minister Hristijan Mickoski sought to minimise the scale of the protests, branding them as politically orchestrated. Official statements focused obsessively on numbers, asserting that “only” around 1,000 people had participated.

The head of the trade union, Slobodan Trendafilov, firmly rejected these claims. And the reality is straightforward: mass participation cannot be erased through selective accounting, nor neutralised by repetition. No matter how hard the authorities and their media amplifiers try, visibility does not disappear through denial.

Support for workers’ demands by opposition parties has been seized upon as further “evidence” of politicisation. But this logic is deeply flawed. Does it suggest that any support for labour rights constitutes abuse? That social suffering must remain apolitical to be considered legitimate?

Pressure, intimidation, and the erosion of rights

More troubling still are reports of organised pressure aimed at preventing workers from joining the protests. Publicly identified cases involving the national postal service and a major tobacco company point to direct threats and intimidation.

These practices are not isolated incidents. They represent a systemic obstruction of fundamental human rights — the right to protest and the right to free expression — guaranteed by national constitutions, domestic law, and international human rights conventions. The right to protest is not a favour granted by those in power; it is a cornerstone of democratic society. Undermining it constitutes a direct attack on democratic processes themselves.

Trade unions have repeatedly stressed that the motivation for taking to the streets is existential hardship, not party loyalty. Yet when governments refuse to listen and label every social demand a “political attack,” they actively deepen polarisation and weaken democratic trust.

Survival is not a partisan issue

Social insecurity, poverty, and the absence of substantive social dialogue inevitably lead to political confrontation. But instead of offering solutions, governments that believe they control all levers of power — including significant parts of the media landscape — too often choose manipulation and discrediting over responsibility.

Accusations of “politicisation” are particularly hollow when used to deflect accountability. Governments do not hold a monopoly over social issues, nor over the truth of people’s lived realities. They have no right to appropriate workers’ existential fear or to delegitimise their demands for survival.

Power does not own workers’ lives. It carries an obligation: to listen, to respond, and to act. Especially now — when this is no longer about ideology or party politics, but about survival itself.

This article is adapted for an international audience from a commentary originally published in Macedonian on CIVIL MEDIA. The adaptation was prepared by the author with editorial assistance from OpenAI (ChatGPT). | CC BY 4.0