Monitoring of Media in Republic of Macedonia REPORT No. 3 - 2013 MEDIA MIRROR Local Elections 2013 MANICHEAN AND GLADIATORIAL TOP-SHOP POPULISM MAY 2013 “Media Mirror” Program is implemented with financial support from Foundation Open Society-Macedonia TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction and Methodology 3 2. Conclusions 3 3. Analysis 5 3.1 Involvement of state and local administrations in the election campaign 5 3.1.1 Before the Campaign Started (February 11-15, 2013) 5 3.1.2 The Campaign (March 17-23, 2013) 7 3.2 Video Ads - Manichean and Gladiatorial 8 3.3 Party Leaders’ Campaign Speeches 12 3.3.1 SDSM: How did the concrete crack? 12 3.3.2 VMRO-DPMNE: Top-Shop Populism 14 3.3.3 In the same Boat: There is Only One Struga 15 2 1. Introduction and Methodology The NGO Infocentre - under the auspices of its “Media Mirror” media monitoring programme, implemented with financial support from the Foundation Open Society Macedonia (FOSM), conducted a monitoring of the media coverage of the Local Elections 2013. Conducted in the period from February 11 to February 15, 2013 (before the official start of the election campaign) and then from March 18 to March 23 (the last five days of the election campaign), the monitoring included six daily newspapers ("Utrinski vesnik”, “Dnevnik”, “Vest”, “Večer“, "Nova Makedonija” and “Fokus”) and the central news programmes aired by seven television stations that broadcast nationally or over the satellite (24 Vesti TV, Kanal 5 TV, Sitel TV, Telma TV, MRT1, Alfa TV and AlsatM TV). The monitoring also covered the promotional campaign video advertisements of the ruling coalition "For Better Macedonia", led by VMRO-DPMNE, and the opposition coalition “Union for the Future”, led by SDSM. The analysis also included several campaign speeches of the leaders of the ruling coalition and the opposition coalition: The speech given by the opposition leader Branko Crvenkovski at the opposition convention in Kumanovo; the speeches of the leader of the ruling coalition Nikola Gruevski at VMRO-DPMNE's convention in Skopje and at the campaign rally in Skopje. The speeches were selected for the reason that they represent the typical structure of addresses and speeches made throughout the campaign and because they offer the essence of the two coalitions' political messages. In addition, a special attention was given to Nikola Gruevski’s speeches in Kičevo and Struga, where coalitions were created to contest the elections along ethnic lines, so it was interesting to see the changed rhetoric of the two opponents, from open hostility to mutual support. The monitoring aimed to analyze the reporting of the media about the activities of state and municipal administrations during the Local Elections; to detect any eventual direct or indirect involvement of state and municipal officials or bodies in the campaign; to determine what type of campaign was practiced in the Local Elections 2013; to see which were the leading messages the political parties presented to the electorate in the Republic of Macedonia (with special focus on Kičevo and Struga); and, to identify the techniques used by the main campaign actors, as presented in the speeches of their leaders. 2. Conclusions The Local Elections 2013 were marked by: an intensive negative smearing campaign of the ruling coalition "For Better Macedonia", led by VMRO-DPMNE, directed at the opposition; increased nationalist rhetoric used by political actors in Kičevo and Struga; direct involvement of administrative bodies and officials in the Campaign, in favor the ruling coalition, and biased and partisan reporting by the majority of the monitored media, again in favor of the ruling coalition. The ruling coalition and its video ads dominated the media coverage throughout the campaign. The analysis of campaign speeches and video ads demonstrates, beyond any doubt, that the ruling coalition engaged in an intensive negative campaign directed at the opposition, which had a strong effect in terms of strengthening the antagonism towards political diversity and seriously distorted the electoral process in general. In stead of a contest of different competing political ideas and programmes, 3 the campaign was transformed into a fierce, personal, smearing no-holds-barred altercation of the Government with the opposition and all the other political opponents and those who don't share its political views and positions. The video ads of the ruling coalition embodied a certain moralizing and proselytizing rhetoric that left little space for any compromise between political differences. The ruling party, through the audio-visual codes used in its advertisements, shaped the party’s ideology and its rhetoric directed at its opponents, with elements of drama, lots of affectation and negative emotional charge, and created a perception of a fight between the "good" (represented by the Government) and the “evil” (of the opposition). Thus it simplified the social and political realities and, in combination with arbitrary political association, created a perception among the citizens strongly favorable of the ruling coalition, at the expense of the “satanised" and vilified opposition. Another cause of concern is the intensified nationalist rhetoric used by political actors in Kičevo and Struga, and the attempt at nationalist mobilization of the electorate along ethnic lines. The analysis of the media coverage of activities of state and local administrations indicates that the Government, with the support by the majority of the media, joined the campaign with direct support to the candidates of the ruling party, running for offices in the local elections, even before the official start of the campaign, and that trend continued until the end of the elections. During the monitored period, the Government announced and promoted a huge number of new measures and policies. Although they were presented primarily as anti-crisis measures, the fact that they were announced during the election campaign can’t but lead to the conclusion that the Government was directly involved in the elections in support of the candidates of the ruling party running for office in the local elections, with support by the pro-government media. At the same time, concerns were raised about the practice of state and local officials to use the resources of their offices (for example, official vehicles, security details, etc.) for campaign purposes. Such conduct and behavior of central and local administrations seriously distorted the electoral process. The analysis shows that the pro-government media that dominate the media scene in Macedonia have been transformed into a propaganda arm of state and local administrations throughout the Elections. They offered a biased and benevolent reporting on the activities of the Government and the ruling coalition, while their coverage of the opposition was highly selective and critical, on occasion completely ignoring all of its activities. The presence of the opposition in the media was visibly limited and reduced almost exclusively to a number of media outlets that are not prominently pro-government in terms of their editorial policies. Such segregation on political grounds made by the media was one of the most worrying processes detected by the monitoring. 4 3. Analysis 3.1 Involvement of state and local administrations in the election campaign 3.1.1 Before the Campaign Started (February 11-15, 2013) Government Announces a Dozen of Projects in Just Five Days Over a period of just five days, the media reported on about a dozen of new Government policies (on average, two new policies were promoted every day): 1. All unemployed persons will be able to realize their social rights, including the passive job-seekers; 2. Increased subsidies – from 50 to 75 percent of the monthly installment in the first five years - for those who want to build a new house, under the auspices of Government's "Buy a House - Buy an Apartment" project. 3. New measures to support the solvency of the national economy through write-offs of debts companies owe to the health and pension insurance funds; 4. By the end of February 2013, the Government will pay its debt to the companies by way of VAT return; 5. Newly introduced changes to the Law on Labour Relations will sanction employers who employ undeclared workers; 6. Best farmers to receive subsidies; 7. Government to cover up to 50% of total investments in support for rural business start-ups; 8. Support for tourist industry, i.e. subsidies and benefits to attract more tourists; 9. Campaign to employ members of marginalized and vulnerable groups. Almost all media covered the announced Government projects. The coverage of the policies of the national government by pro-government media was exclusively affirmative and even borderline propagandist. They didn't find the fact that the Government is announcing and implemented an unusually large number of projects and investments on the eve of elections the least bit questionable. Furthermore, they gave positive assessment to the activities and even describe the Government's projects in great detail. They didn’t refrain from openly praising the Government of realizing its agenda, in spite of the political crisis that engulfed the country, or from open criticism of the opposition. Therefore, the pro- government media offered articles with the following headlines: "45 days, 50 projects of the Government, while the opposition blocks streets” (February 13, 2013, Sitel TV); “Government’s Agenda Resistant to Political Tensions / Concrete Economic Projects Pass By the Blockades of the Opposition” (February 12, 2013, “Dnevnik”). The pro-government media didn't offer a single word of criticism of the Government. Only “Nova Makedonija” daily carried the statement by Menderes Kuqi, President of the Chamber of Commerce of Northwestern Macedonia, given to Radio Free Europe, that both the central government and the local administrations pressure the businesspeople and demand “rackets" to be paid in order to award them contracts, and that the businesspeople are not satisfied with the dynamic of payment of Government’s debt to the business community in Macedonia.