A state cannot be run through projects. A state is not a project; it is a system.
About two decades ago, the term “project” entered our political and civic space. The entry occurred through the donor sector, which provides its development assistance to the country, as well as globally, on a project basis. After a certain period, whether due to modernity, simplicity, but also due to the continuity of this type of donor assistance and global use, the name project inappropriately and immeasurably spread into politics, institutions, education, culture and the everyday life of the common man.
The term “project”, which etymologically means some kind of plan, sketch, design, we authentically know from architecture, construction, infrastructure and similar fields where “project” means technical specification and documentation for the construction of some kind of building. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, a project is “a specific planned work or activity that is completed within a certain time and serves to achieve a specific goal”. From the definition, it is crucial to understand that a project denotes something that, once it has achieved its goal in a limited time, reaches its end and ceases to be implemented.
However, the needs and problems of a state are continuous and inevitable. They do not disappear when a project ends. A state cannot be managed through projects. A state is not a project; it is a system. The introduction of “projects” into the political discourse has negatively affected the way institutions are managed in North Macedonia, reducing, even sometimes excluding, a systemic, public-policy-driven approach to addressing the needs and problems of the country.
Therefore, in this text I want to point out the problems of the dominance of “projects” and the project approach in politics and in public discourse, as well as to emphasize the necessity of a systemic approach and solutions to the challenges facing the state at both national and local levels.
What are these issues?
The First Issue – Impoverishment of Language, Vocabulary, Communication and Thought
This is a linguistic, communicative and cognitive problem.
The word “project” is overused in communication to label things for which there already exists a more precise term. In doing so, it is often overlooked that the term “project” is overly generic and requires additional clarification. From a communication perspective, the effectiveness of a message decreases when the sender’s encoding does not match the recipient’s decoding. In other words, the sender knows what they mean by “project,” but due to the word’s generic nature, the recipient may either not fully understand it or interpret it individually, potentially differently from the sender’s intention.
In trying to explain many things, the term often ends up explaining nothing. In contrast, using a precise term usually suffices to convey the intended meaning. This is particularly noticeable in culture and the arts, but the phenomenon extends further.
For instance, we say “project”, and we mean an exhibition, a theater performance, a ballet performance, an opera, a play, a film and quite unnecessarily, a film project, when the word “film” is a sufficient explanation for itself. We say “project”, and we mean one of these completely different concepts: service, book, festival, research, series, concert, news information portal, TV program, subsidy, measure. More recently, it is even used to describe an enterprise, a company, an investment or a rule.
Source: freepik.com
The term also often replaces more precise words such as “work” or “measure.” When these words are applicable, they are more exact and better indicate what they describe. Additionally, they are authentic terms rooted in the local linguistic context.
To summarize, the frequent use of the term “project”, instead of the authentic word that explains the work, act, measure, action, service, etc., impoverishes the opinion, the effectiveness of communication and the eloquence of expression. Awareness of this is crucial because language and thought are mutually dependent. Furthermore, public figures, through greater eloquence and precision in expression, can raise awareness and positively influence richer and more precise public discourse.
The Second Issue – Weakening the Systemic Approach in Favor of “High-Profile” Projects
This is a broader problem, arising when politics and state or institutional matters are approached project-wise rather than systemically, programmatically, and long-term through targeted public policies and embedded measures. A systemic approach implies treating an institution, composed of multiple interrelated and interdependent parts, ensuring that it effectively fulfills its responsibilities by applying state-established management principles, resulting in quality and timely services and satisfied citizen users.
A systemic approach also entails predictability in the quality of services or measures, ensuring that citizens can consistently expect them on time and at the same or improved quality. Essentially, everything a state does constitutes a service to its citizens, from highways to websites, medical check-ups, education, inspections of hospitality or tourist facilities, control of pollutants, and more. Working systemically means assuming much greater responsibility. It requires approaching an institution with logically connected interventions and measures, collecting and linking data about users and services, tracking outcomes, and identifying needs for adjustments or improvements.
Projects and project considerations are concepts of ad-hoc interventions that are not connected or integrated into the system. The examples are numerous, but here is a hypothetical project for the promotion of 30 tourist sites. Promotional material will be made for 30 tourist sites, they will be promoted, maybe something will be renovated, and since it is a project, it will be finished in a year or so. To approach systematically means primarily to check and improve the infrastructure conditions in those places, to conduct regular control, and then to promote continuously on an annual basis. To include it in the Government’s program and the appropriate ministry, with a detailed plan, with appropriate measures and budget, with measuring the results.
What probably deterred some politicians is that establishing or maintaining a system in a certain area implies comprehensiveness and long-termism, and assuming responsibility. It requires keeping a big picture in mind. Unlike the implementation of the project, establishing and maintaining a system requires much more knowledge, time, budget, process management, data collection, measuring results, adopting acts, coordination and human resources, and seemingly fewer opportunities for public promotion.
However, in the long run, the results satisfy citizens. Citizens are satisfied because they see and experience that institutions are functional and provide timely, high-quality services. And is there any better public relations (PR) than word-of-mouth, “I got the service done in three minutes,” “I heard they work well,” and so on.
It is positive that in recent years we have observed prominent politicians acknowledging that for various issues “there is no system” or “the system does not work,” and speaking about “establishing a system” and “systemic solutions.” Unlike previous electoral cycles, in some 2024 election programs and statements, government representatives increasingly emphasize working on systemic solutions rather than resolving problems project-wise. The most evident example is the establishment of the “Safe City[1]” system and the discussions surrounding its implementation.
At the same time, it is understandable that when talking about the construction of railway infrastructure, a clinical center, roads, such investments should be named as a project, but they should also be approached as systemic solutions in transport, treatment in the country, etc. This gradual change in approach and speeches is visible, but it is necessary for all politicians from all political groups to systematically approach addressing and resolving the needs, problems and situations in the areas they are targeting. Furthermore, this approach should be carried out into the institutions where they operate and into public awareness to ensure long-term change and systemic, rather than project-based, ad-hoc improvement of the quality of life in the country.
