Who has the right to decide who we are?!

The proposed law on "Proportionate and Fair Representation" has sparked intense debate in North Macedonia, raising fundamental questions about the balance between state authority and personal identity. At its core, the law aims to ensure fair representation of ethnic communities within the country's political and administrative structures. This goal aligns with democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution and international agreements such as the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by the Council of Europe. However, critics argue that the law introduces mechanisms that could allow the state to question and potentially override individuals' self-identification with their ethnic community.

According to Article 6 of the draft law, citizens have the right to freely declare their affiliation with a particular community. This provision is consistent with constitutional guarantees and international standards that affirm the right of all individuals to express, preserve, and develop their cultural identity. Yet, the law also introduces provisions that permit the verification of ethnic affiliation based on so-called "objective criteria." These include personal data such as names and surnames, which raises concerns among human rights advocates and civil society organizations.

Critics highlight that in modern European legal frameworks, ethnic affiliation is not considered an administrative category determined by the state. It is not a license issued by an institution nor a certificate granted by a commission. Instead, ethnic identity is viewed as a matter of personal self-identification. The introduction of criteria that could lead to state scrutiny of this self-identification has been met with significant resistance.

One of the most pressing concerns raised by opponents of the law is who would determine whether an individual’s declaration of ethnic affiliation is “genuine.” Would a government-appointed commission assess whether someone is sufficiently Macedonian, Albanian, Turkish, Serbian, Roma, Bosniak, or Egyptian? This approach echoes past controversies, such as when former President Gjorge Ivanov described antisemitism as a condition involving excessive hatred toward Jews. Critics argue that there is little difference between such subjective assessments and the proposed mechanism under the new law.

The potential for state interference in matters of personal identity is further illustrated through hypothetical scenarios. For instance, consider Rubin Zemon, a member of the Balkan Egyptian community. His name and surname reflect his personal, family, and collective identity. If the state were to apply criteria based on names and surnames, how can one guarantee that a government official or commission would not conclude that his name more closely resembles Jewish traditions than Egyptian ones? Would anyone then have the authority to tell him that his self-identification is less important than their interpretation of his name?

Similar concerns arise regarding other communities. Could officials claim that members of the family of former MP Branko Manojlovski, who traditionally identify as Orthodox Christians but bear non-Albanian names, are not actually Albanians? Or might someone assert that the family of Ismail Bojda, who identifies as Muslim Macedonians but have non-Macedonian surnames, are not truly Macedonian Muslims?

These examples underscore the broader issue: the Balkans have long been a region shaped by migrations, assimilation, intermarriage, Islamization, Christianization, and changes in surnames. Many people today carry names that do not correspond to their self-identified ethnicity. Some may have Slavic names yet feel identified as Egyptians, others may have Turkish surnames while identifying as Macedonians, and still others may have Albanian names while being Bosniaks.

Democracies around the world have long abandoned the principle of proving ethnic affiliation through external markers. The only universally accepted and civilized principle is that each person should be free to define their own identity without state intervention.

The additional concern stems from the law’s provision for sanctions against individuals found to be engaging in "abuse," although the law does not provide clear criteria for determining what constitutes abuse. This lack of clarity raises fears of arbitrary enforcement and potential misuse of the law against individuals seeking to assert their identity. As the debate continues, many are calling for greater transparency and public consultation before the law is finalized.