In North Macedonia, there’s always talk of foreign influence, but this topic regularly remains on the margins of media and public discourse. Our interviewee, Marko Troshanovski from the Institute for Democracy “Societas Civilis” (IDSCS), believes that foreign influence should not be underestimated, it has been present in the country from the moment it declared independence to this day. Whether this influence has had a positive or negative effect depends on the sector, but according to him, the media and weak state institutions have, for decades, kept the door ajar for winds blowing from abroad.
Is North Macedonia truly independent in its decision-making?
I believe that since independence, the country has struggled to establish integrity in shaping both its domestic and foreign policies. Political elites, and the system itself, are captured at many levels. Ethnic Macedonian political representatives are largely influenced, whether by Serbian, Bulgarian, or Greek interests, not only in politics but also in business. Turkey’s influence is also significant. A large portion of the media space is heavily shaped by Serbian interests, but we also have national media backed by murky Hungarian capital.
From a realpolitik perspective, each of these countries is understandably trying to project its interests onto Macedonia’s political processes. On the other hand, the political elites of the Albanian community who once acted as a bridge between Kosovo and Albania and offered political vision and leadership, especially through figures like Arben Xhaferi, are now becoming satellites of either Kosovo or Albania, reflecting the political ambitions of their respective leaders. There is still some genuine political vision, but it is often entangled with other interests. Alongside organized crime, this contributes to our ongoing inability to build a stable system and social cohesion.
How much does the historical legacy of the Balkans and the desire of each state to claim more of it play into this?
The problem with Balkan countries is that they have not yet reached a level of political maturity that embraces cooperation for the collective good, respecting the dignity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of all nations in the region. Other areas like the Visegrad Group, Scandinavia, and Germany–France have managed to move forward significantly after destructive historical periods, even traumatic ones. In the Balkans, political leaders remain hostages of history and ideas like Greater Serbia, Greater Albania, or San Stefano Bulgaria. They are digging trenches for future generations instead of building bridges of cooperation and prosperity. Unfortunately, the outcome of these efforts or the influence of neighboring countries on Macedonia’s domestic and foreign policies has not always been in our best interest.
We are blocking ourselves
How much of a role did foreign influence play in the signing of the Ohrid Framework Agreement and the Prespa Agreement?
We can say that due to all these factors and the country’s failure to build authentic, stable policies and development strategies, each political crisis has been overcome with international mediation. But I must add: the greatest internal obstacle has always been our own lack of consensus among decision-makers on what kind of country we want to live in, and where we want to go. Even agreements meant to establish some form of national consensus, like the Ohrid Framework Agreement, the Law on Territorial Division, the Law on the Use of Languages, or the Prespa Agreement, rarely enjoyed broad-based support.
What does that suggest?
It shows that we still lack a fully developed sense of national consciousness. Even initiatives that aimed to build an inclusive state, such as the Ohrid Agreement, are now being reinterpreted. Today, some Albanian political elites are questioning it, advocating instead for a consociational model resembling Bosnia and Herzegovina, rather than a unitary, multiethnic state with limited consociational elements that safeguard community rights without giving any group political veto power.
Now we’re seeing calls for ethnic majorities in government formation, and even proposals for a bicameral parliament. These ideas directly undermine the foundations of the Ohrid Framework Agreement and contradict its original intent. Constantly revisiting and reinterpreting what’s already been agreed upon creates new fractures in society and fuels potential future conflicts. It may seem like the easier path politically, but it’s not the future our youth want, especially those considering leaving or returning to the country.
Which sectors are most affected by foreign influence, formally or informally and how does it impact institutional decisions?
I would say Serbia’s intelligence services exert considerable influence, which needs to be reduced. Greece also plays a role, as evidenced by the former intelligence officers who fled there and were not extradited, despite having access to sensitive information. Although Bulgaria’s services were systematically removed during the Yugoslav era, I believe some level of influence remains.
The media sector is especially dominated by Serbia, not always with friendly intentions. This extends beyond entertainment to include politically driven editorial policies, editors, and even ownership of news portals and national broadcasters. There’s also increasing influence from Albania and Kosovo in the Albanian-language media space, which is becoming less domestic and more shaped by these two neighboring countries.
Turkey’s influence is growing too, through student presence, labor migration, and what’s often referred to as "soft power" with investments in energy infrastructure (notably solar and photovoltaic plants), education, and finance.
What’s the balance between legitimate international support and political dependency in reform processes?
This is a matter of underdeveloped state capacities and the lack of institutional memory in public administration, which should be preserved and strengthened through genuine policy participation, attractive working conditions, and de-politicization. We need capable people committed to serving the state long-term, people who pass their knowledge to equally competent successors. These individuals can drive reforms in the national interest, drawing on foreign consultants where needed, but not depending on them entirely.
Yes, foreign expertise is crucial in fast-moving global fields like digitalization and the green agenda, where small countries like Macedonia can’t develop everything in-house. But our politicians often lack the awareness that it’s the public servants who must lead and sustain the country’s progress, with politicians merely fronting that expertise. This has left us reliant on donor programs to fund policy development and lawmaking. As management consultants say: if someone keeps giving you fish but never teaches you to fish, you’ll still go hungry tomorrow.
Media literacy tells the whole story
What does this mean for our future negotiations with the EU?
We’ll face the same issues during the EU accession talks. Even though the process is largely about adopting EU law, the fact that these are negotiations means we need to build and defend our own national positions. For that, we need capacity.
So the message to current and past governments since the independence is that we must build a professional, efficient, and competent public administration if we want this country to function. Of course, rule of law is equally vital, it must be a non-negotiable standard for anyone aspiring to lead this country forward.
How resilient is the media to foreign disinformation?
This is a challenge even in stronger media ecosystems. In our case, the problem stems from within the media sector itself and a steady decline in human resource quality, many journalists can’t even recognize disinformation or hybrid threats involving half-truths from various power centers. The audience, too, is increasingly unable to critically assess media content. People believe whatever they read. This issue has persisted in Macedonia for a long time and is only worsening globally.
We rank among the lowest in Europe in terms of media literacy, but some of our research indicates small improvements. Unlike in the past, media literacy is now being introduced through formal education and civil society initiatives. As a result, audiences are beginning to critically engage with media content. This creates at least some resistance to disinformation and hostile media influence.
Where is foreign influence in media most evident?
The country is highly vulnerable and is a target for hybrid warfare on the Balkan stage, mostly from hostile third countries. These campaigns often work by polarizing the public, through social media and traditional channels, into hostility. Citizens are made to distrust institutions, the state, and each other. Instead of building a society based on dialogue and cooperation, people are pushed to view each other as enemies. This erodes social cohesion and weakens the societal fabric.
I’m not saying our institutions function perfectly, but this foreign element deepens the public’s distrust in each other, in institutions, and in the state itself. A destabilized, vulnerable country is the perfect playground for foreign political agendas on the Balkans, instability is the goal. We must stay aware of this and work to build public resilience against such influence.
Are our institutions stronger and more stable than they were 20 years ago?
When it comes to institutional independence from political influence, we know our own homework. Public administration reform means passing laws that ensure the right people are in the right roles, from leadership down to entry-level positions, based on merit, not party or ethnic loyalty.
The sooner political parties stop appointing loyalists, relatives, and campaign workers, and start appointing competent professionals, the better for everyone. Only then will the administration be professionalized and protected from political influence. This reform must be a top priority, especially through the Law on Senior Management Service, which is designed to reduce political interference in public sector appointments.
Salvation lies in reform
How long will it take to build real institutional resilience, free from party pressures?
We’re seeing how long this has dragged on. The major parties continue to trade off state interests for narrow party gains. Unfortunately, this still holds true. There are reform efforts and new laws in the pipeline, but we’re also seeing resistance and sluggishness from a system that refuses to let go of control.
The second issue is the judiciary, and we keep repeating this. A free, professional civil service and courts that deliver justice. The judiciary must be independent, and again, parties must relinquish control.
This is the ideal scenario. But when parties don’t share this vision, we must talk about electoral reform and intra-party democracy, things like open lists, combined lists, so that voters can elect capable politicians, not just party loyalists.
Internal party democracy is equally important. Leaders should be elected by party members, not by a small inner circle of loyalists. Only that way will we get the best people in the right places, institutions will become resilient, and the country can finally move forward.
This content was produced by the Institute of Communication Studies.
Journalist: Sonja Kramarska
Photography: Darko Andonovski
