This week, which is not over yet, may not bring us a big lesson, but it can bring us a new government. Today. Prime Minister-designate Dimitar Kovacevski, after "verifying" the composition of his team before the party, with little or no waves, submitted it to Talat Xhaferi, and that list should be put on a parliamentary session today (Saturday), and if all goes well, voted.

Kovacevski's team will have 21 ministers, twelve from SDSM, six from DUI, three from Alternativa. Twelve Macedonians, nine Albanians, which is certainly not a fair or proportionate picture of the relationship of Macedonians and Albanians (and others) in society, but it is certainly a proportional ethnic reflection of the relationship of the distribution of political power in society. When we get the results of the census, we will know exactly what is the proportion of ethnic Macedonians and Albanians in the country (3: 1 or 4: 1, perhaps) and what is the imbalance in terms of their current representation in the executive branch (currently 4: 3). And it should not have been so, at least according to the Framework Agreement, but it is not current now.

But let us not be nationalists, let us not see everything through an ethnic prism! We will do that if by chance, sometime in the future, in a different coalition, the balance is disturbed to the detriment of the Albanians. Then the Framework Agreement will be very current, and its "violation" will be a "white box" for a political, and maybe some other crisis, but now it is not. Macedonian democracy is a miracle! In it, "a" plus "be" is not equal to "be" plus "a". Gjorge Ivanov said that it is like a cosmodisk - it looks "crazy" but it works. With the difference that it has not functioned yet. It just looks like that.

***

As for the composition of the government, here we must paraphrase a wise thought attributed to Otto von Bismarck, who said that laws are like sausages - you do not want to know how they are made. The same goes for governments.

Those unfamiliar with the party culinary are trying in vain to "catch" the logic according to which some ministers "fly" from their seats, others stay, others rotate. It seems logical if someone is changed that it means that he was unsuccessful, if it remains that he was solid, and if he goes to another department, that he was great, so as such he goes on a new mission, to lean where he should. But when you see what it looks like in practice, you are left with strange things.

"Fly" Sekerinska, Filipce, Carovska, Shahpaska, Irena Stefoska… Not that it is a pity for someone, but I try to remember when they were declared unsuccessful and by whom? From their party, certainly not. From the opposition, for sure. But for the opposition, they are all unsuccessful, that is, "catastrophic", from the first to the last, always and everywhere, which means that their judgment is irrelevant. If there were nuances, there would be weight.

Almost all of them from DUI remain in the departments, which means that they were all successful (!?), As well as Spasovski (Ministry of Interior), Bochvarski (transport), Milevski (local self-government). I can not exactly remember their successes, but, let's say so. I hope that the prime minister-designate will list their results, but then he will probably have to say a word about the failures of those changed, which is a bit inconvenient. The biggest problem, personally, I have with the "superstars", who have to stay in the government in order to "fix" some other departments, as they "fixed" their own. Such are Maricic (from justice in European integration), Ljupco Nikolovski (from deputy prime minister for anti-corruption in agriculture) and Jaton Shaqiri (from public administration in education and science). I'm really interested in how that is explained. However, we said, this is just an apparent logic that bothers people outside of politics.

Success has little or nothing to do with staying or leaving this (or other) government. As far as the number of seats in a crowded bus with wedding guests is concerned, who stopped at the station to receive new wedding guests. Of course, each party reserves the exclusive right to "fill" the places for which it was boxed, and the prime minister has nothing to do with that. He is a staff member only to "his" ministers, the others are given "greatness". When forming the government, it is important who is "listed" among those who have the main word, who knows and trusts whom well (maybe from skiing, motorcycling or football), who is "whose man", who whom and with what he owed, blackmailed and the like. In a crowded bus with many passengers, it is important to make room for the new ones, and the better ones can come down, if they are more understanding, ready to "sacrifice", not to "chew", to be satisfied with a "comforting place", everything in the name of the common goal - the wedding, that is, the government, to pass without a problem!

***

Those "unloaded" from the government bus are not always ready to silently silence their shift, an end to the peace in the house. Deputy Prime Minister for European Integration Nikola Dimitrov, otherwise a non-partisan man, who will not be in the new government, decided to "raise his voice" before leaving, ie to explain it at a press conference or to take revenge for his dismissal. He said that he did not trust the Minister of Foreign Affairs Bujar Osmani, that he was ready to go too far for a compromise with Bulgaria, that he was often in conflict with him defending the Macedonian positions, and claimed that he was fired precisely because of his strong views.

If he predicted that this would cause an earthquake on the Macedonian political scene, he proceeded to the calculation. The Macedonian public was not shaken, they multiplied it all by zero, considering that he spoke when he was already dismissed, ie late. If he had grounds to suspect both Osmani and the government's moves, he could have taken it on as deputy prime minister and resigned. Then it would really cause an earthquake. Words only have weight if they are uttered at the right moment, and it seems that this moment, when he already saw that he was not in the new government, was the worst possible.

The opposition was not very impressed either, because it constantly and "from the sleeve" claimed that this government was "betraying" in the negotiations with Sofia, so it used its performance to insult the "careerist Dimitrov" rather than to support its accusations. .

It was quite counterproductive to point out that he had been offered the post of ambassador "to remain silent", which made it clear that his condition for remaining silent was to remain in government. As he has been silent so far. Even more tactfully and anti-diplomatically, he "discovered" that the "foreigners" (Kaleto, Brussels?) Proposed him to be a prime minister, but that was rejected by the parties, explaining, according to his interpretation, that he was too idealistic !? I can believe that there were ideas for him to be the Prime Minister in some expert or broad government, I will find it a little harder to believe that they were rejected with such compliments for him, but I completely believe that those who proposed it, when they heard him publicly "offer" them press conference, they were absolutely convinced that they had run a little.

***

The new prime minister-designate, and soon a new prime minister, Dimitar Kovacevski, announced that after the new government is formed, he will have a meeting with opposition leader Hristijan Mickoski. But the offer was expressly rejected. On behalf of Mickoski, MP Antonio Milososki said that a meeting with Kovacevski could be accepted only on the condition that early elections be discussed. And maybe for the content of the answers that Macedonia has given to official Sofia, at their request, according to the 5 + 1 formula, but the first condition is to discuss early elections. Kovacevski responded that there is no need to talk about early elections, the parliamentary majority is stable, the government will be voted, and the elections will be in the regular term, in 2024.

And, really, if there is no discussion about early elections, there is nothing else to talk about with Mickoski. He has "swallowed" a record and knows how to repeat only two or three things: "Kovacevski is Zaev's pawn", "this government has no legitimacy" and "let's go to early elections". How can no one tell him that Kovacevski is a pawn of Zaev as much as Mickovski is a pawn of Gruevski? What is the difference? Or to tell him that a government has no legitimacy if it has lost its parliamentary majority, and this is shown by a vote of (no) confidence in the Assembly, and not by winning local elections. Mayors can not vote to overthrow the government, only MPs. He once seriously tried to form a new parliamentary majority, but failed. And that was the right way. He can try again, but he can not achieve what he failed to achieve by political means with parrot repetition and constant "poisoning" of the public for early elections. It is like constantly shouting "burn, burn" to a stove, and you do not put wood in it!

And maybe that is the only goal - to "poison" the public? He probably estimated that this public does not distinguish between truth and illusion. For now, he is doing well - our public is quite poisoned.