Balkan.Myth.final

MYTHS OF THE OTHER IN THE BALKANS · 84

positivist legitimisation. And since ‘historical truth’ can no longer be credited as an
ultimate, and overwhelmingly sufficient argument in democratic politics making
(even less in its form of meta-groundness), the need for anticipating a political
representation that will be moving the things forward within our fast-paced, post-
modern society, becomes a ‘must’ in its own right.
Hence, assuming the more qualitative approach to democratic policy-making, as of
what Ankersmit portrays an aesthetic political representation, most likely, can be an
imperative for creating, delivering, and realistically sustaining, integrative policies, of
qualitatively improved, democratic conduct.
Or translated within the existing political conditions and relations between Greece and
the Republic of Macedonia over the “Macedon”, it appears, that the political
representation can either stimulate further positive, as much as negative impulses.
And all that depending very much on the question of how it is to be comprehended;
whether as a constant search for integrative political, (and consequently societal)
processes, or as a pale ontological postulate for replicating one’s own ‘absolute truth’.
From these accounts, I am likely to believe that ‘the issue’ in its current format, is not
an issue at all, as much as of what Ankersmit recognises within his perception of the
mimetic theory of political representation, and which by his conviction, is also, not a
theory of political representation at all. Rather, he sees the alternative within the so-
called aesthetic theory of political representation, as an innovative, and productive
approach to managing political relations (and situations), along with the overall
democratic conduct within society. And since there is a growing agreement within the
social sciences field that the representation does not reflect but rather creates,
(Czarniawska specifically on narrative constructions in social sciences, p. 118, 2004),
Ankersmit, further claims that the aesthetic political representation essentially, is all
about bringing a sort of a new ‘additional value’ within the democratic policy making.
Yet, in his own thoughts, it is still to be sufficiently exploited, both theoretically, and
pragmatically.
So, how productive and sustainable, could such approach eventually be, regarding the
issue of “Macedon”, and to terms of sensibly overcoming the fears of the both
nations? Where do the political language and paradigm start, and where do they end,
within the flow of the so-called ‘reality’ and ‘myth’? Can the historical constructivist
narrative after all, be a reachable and sustainable category, between the two countries
and nations? Then, is the Balkans in this chapter to be reinvented, or reverted?
I use the term “Macedon” as a rhetorical cast, and with an intention for it being a
neutral deductive construction, i.e., a sort of neologism, thus taking into consideration
(at least most generally, rather than explicitly), both sides’ truths, and given the
contested heritage in question. Indirectly, and within the realpolitik contextualization,
my text opts for addressing the so-called ‘name issue’, that in my view, is to be
sustained within the erga omnes as of the ‘Republic of Macedonia’, with strong
compulsory clauses assuring it is being used as such. I believe, the ‘Republic’ makes
a clear distinction to the “other Macedon”, which as a sort of sub-construction I use
bellow in my text for ‘categorising’ a part of the differential, but yet in my view, a
very common, Balkan heritage. Surely, suchlike stance does not address many further
questions and dilemmas that the social scientists (historians primarily), would likely,
have to be dealing with, and hopefully sooner agree upon. But as for the primary
interest of mine, there stands a political ‘formula’ inspired by the ones of

contrary, appears to the idea of an aesthetic political representation, claiming basically, that the system
of representative democracy, as we have known it for several centuries now, inevitably has to undergo
rather radical changes, and all that, just to come back to its ‘roots’.

MYTHS OF THE OTHER IN THE BALKANS · 85

Ankersmit’s, for which I suggest, might well suit this problem called ‘the name
issue’.

2. An Apologia and Antithesis
How the national narratives collided and progressed in the midst of the political
processes over the “Macedon” within the past two decades, is likely to be associated
with what Franklin Rudolf Ankersmit portrays as a theory of mimetic political
representation. In his work (1996), Ankersmit justifies a rather contrary concept, in
terms of the overall democratic thought and conduct, and as of what is to be by his
accounts, a theory of aesthetic political representation. To this end, I am fully aware
that placing the theoretical political discourses over the “Macedon” within a suchlike
subjectivisation on aesthetic politics, could be deemed as an over-ambitious goal, at
least for the time being… However, I will get myself the privilege, in trying to map a
backbone, to what I believe could be a far more qualitative political discourse, than
the one existing in the moment; And all that, in the spirit of connecting the people and
cultures in the Balkans.
Ankersmit comes to terms with the idea that likewise the social, the political
processes are also not, nor it is likely that they will remain being of static, so to say,
pre-arranged nature, and in the role of mostly following the instrumental aspects of
democratic politics within our modernity. Political representation, as it has been
known and conducted for a couple of centuries now, by his accounts, inevitably has to
undergo rather radical changes, and all that, accordingly, to retain to the path, as of
securing an essentially democratic environment, as well as governance. The aesthetic
political representation thus, motivates individual’s subjection to the scope, and the
quality, of the democratic conduct and reality.
Ankersmit notices that the discourse of politics, society, and the state, has moved
between the norm and the fact, resulting thus, in a situational reality that most of the
political conclusions and decisions being reached, proved to be certain projections of
values, rather than actual truths. Political philosophy for its part, retained mostly to its
normative character, explicating its affinity to the rational choice theories.
Concluding this, Ankersmit continues upon the notion that in the aesthetic political
representation, the ethical and normative dimensions are to be reduced to irrelevance.
Hence, and from his point of view, he strongly advocates an aesthetic, in addition to
ethical and normative approach to political theory and practice…
The person represented is never represented completely, but as Ankersmit suggests,
only partially, and most notably, throughout metaphorical constructions, that always
have a specific, mostly a fact-norm oriented projection focus. These metaphorical
constructions consider a very limited, if not only a single aspect of the voter, who is to
be politically represented, (e.g. a citizen of specific country). As a flexible category
however, ‘the fact’, within the political discourse, will always be an emanation of the
available knowledge. Hence, exercising political robustness over the chosen facts, can
certainly, and prospectively, bring only a less productive outcome, affecting mostly,
the shared soc-reality of the lived context and time.
Thus, representation, and within the boundaries of the political, inevitably comes to
terms with, what we understand by democracy, and the capacities for democratic rule
and exchange. And, as it is becoming an ever more vibrant category for measuring the
human development, the democracy is also becoming an ever more diversified model
of social interaction. Pierre Rosanvallon (2008) goes even further by extensively
elaborating this concept as ‘unpolitical democracy’.

MYTHS OF THE OTHER IN THE BALKANS · 86

Mimetic theory indicates that the political representation should be reflecting as
accurately as possible, the people represented. The representation anticipated as such,
is an exact portrait in miniature of the people at large. The aesthetic theory of
representation, on the contrary, and according to Ankersmit, presupposes a substantial
difference between the representative, and the person being represented. This
difference, is unavoidable in political representation; as unavoidable, as the difference
between a painted portrait of an artist, and the person being portrayed…
And as the artistic representation, implies a certain amount of deliberate distortion of
the ‘objective truth’, that is being artistically represented, the very same ‘objective
truth’, cannot choose the perspective, from which, it is to be represented. It will be
like (and almost unimaginative), making one specific artistic style as obligatory to all
pictorial representation, or otherwise, if using any other style than the specified, shall
mean not to be considered a ‘true artist’ at any cost…
Conclusively, Ankersmit indicates that the mimetic theory of representation cannot be
a theory of representation at all, but on the contrary, a theory against the
representation. And as an issue cannot be an issue, unless perceived, and approached
as such, I claim that the very political settling for the “Macedon”, depends greatly on
the political virtues, to exercise essential democratic capacities, as much as the
courage, by both parties, and in the historically given, integrative momentum.
As a basic argument that Ankersmit claims upon in his theory of aesthetic political
representation, is his conviction that there is always a need, for a certain distance
between the representative and the person being represented. This distance, allows the
representative autonomy to weight the political decisions, rather than becoming, as
mostly suggested by the mimetic theory of representation, a delegate of the voter, or
in other words, his or her mailbox. Such an argument, in favour of the aesthetic
political representation, contradictorily enough, was actually strongly promoted by
Rousseau, in his course against all political representation…
In doing so, Rousseau, problematises the notion of ‘identity’ within relations between
the representative and the person being represented, arguing that the former (the
representative) can only be “people’s agents”… The ‘identity’ is in this case, a
constitutive element of the mimetic theory of political representation, whereas in
theory and practice of aesthetic political representation, likewise Rousseau, Ankersmit
in fact, recognizes the one, as of the ‘difference’…
Hence, political issues are often very complex, and by no single, and clear question,
or even structural unit, as of the Rousseau’s ‘general will’, can these be rightfully
formulated, nor it is likely to expect that one will have a ready-made answer, to every
political question.
Then, as for the “Macedon”, there stands the fact, of constantly fuelling the mythical
senses of the glorious past by the both parties. A process that is being more or less
articulated, as much as embraced within the political relationships of representation,
and with only changing timeframe and intensity. In sum, the political actions taken by
the both parties, for essentially defining the problem, as much as easing ‘the issue’,
remained relevant, ‘within their own breath’.

The drive for a democratic development, integration and all-level cooperation
between the two countries and societies, primarily questions the political courage
and democratic capacities, to face up to the challenges of our contemporary ‘case’.
It is frankly speaking, ever more delicate, to be left unanswered, as to a lesser or a
greater extent, directly or indirectly, it negatively affects, the relationships between
the two countries. Henceforth, contributing the idea of historical constructivism in
European context, and towards the ensemble of the “Macedon”, primarily befalls

MYTHS OF THE OTHER IN THE BALKANS · 87

on the part of political representation, which for its part, has to find ways to create
and prospectively manage, a durable, and mutually agreeable solution.
Political representation therefore, is not, nor it can sustain itself being a replicated
outlook of the represented, but on the contrary, a relation of differential democratic
surplus, and an expressionism of an autonomous, and qualitatively emerging conduct,
moulding the very political reality.
In other words, there is not a political reality existing, as a pre-defined state of affairs
in political sense, but political reality is rather made throughout the political
representation. Rather than a priori, it is a posteriori category. It does not exist before
the political representation, but rather, it is created by it, to be a changeable and a
varied outcome. It is as much as the case, on the question of styles in artistic
representation. Henceforth, political reality does not originate from the acceptance of
certain facts, or normative rules. Instead, and as of what Ankersmit suggests,
‘making’ the political reality is what actually counts, towards the whole rationale of
political representation, and as of the idea, of defining the proposals for political
action…
In this sense, what Ankersmit sees as an appealing principle generated by the result of
mimetically interpreted, as well as practiced political power, is within the notion that
the state and the society have gradually become an inseparable unit, whereas the
disappearance of the boundaries between them, has resulted in a double emanation of
“one (still unnamed) substance” (p. 52). Henceforth, he clearly observes that in
principle, such submission of the state and the society under a single postulation is
typical for totalitarianism, whose intensity and form of appearance, I believe are just a
matter of the level of political development within national environments. The
question about the stage, at which a clear division between these two can be achieved,
inevitably, is a constantly open case…
Thus no matter how ironically and contradictorily it might sounds, in our shortly-
existing, but still, too-long-enough case (at least when it comes to the UN mandated
process over the name issue), the contemporary conceptual discourse on political
thought and action, could surely find some interesting hotspots for eventual
examination. And as of the so-called ‘balkanisation of politics’ it is even more likely,
that ‘the issue’ has become another political charade within European context – a
tragic-comical mometum, that supplements further problematisation of ‘otherness’ in
the Balkans.
The UN mandated process over the name issue is at the dead end. After years of
ethno-centrist departures, as well as for the lacking efforts to properly communicate
each other’s fears, the political representation randomly continued to be trapped, but
yet cultivated within an empty political rhetorics. Such patios to the problem, a sort of
‘listening but not hearing’, politically resulted in nothing but a loss of precious time
for both of the parties, that failed to further their political relations from their most
basic (and abstract) level ones, while prospectively engaging into an essentially
dynamic and diverse cooperation at all levels. A one, as much as it is been
preconceived by the Interim Accord of 1995…
This stalemate implicates negatively a much wider scope of political objectives
concerning the Euro-Atlantic integration processes in the Balkans, too… And while
the “Macedon” is being strongly embedded within the collective memories and the
identity codes, it additionally soars in its political complexity. Obviously, there are
‘issues’, rather than ‘an issue’. This claim is to be recognized and clearly articulated
either in context of the already mentioned a) overall integrative policies for the
region, or more specifically b) to the very “Macedon”itself.