Ivanovski: Filipče remains an excellent surgeon, but at the head of SDSM he has not delivered results

University professor and former senior SDSM official Igor Ivanovski said that the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia and its leader Venko Filipče represent two fundamentally different realities. He made this assessment on Wednesday while moderating the meeting titled “Conversations for the Future,” which underscored the need for the country’s progressive democratic public to develop an objective and substantive debate.

Explaining the reasons for the event, which was held behind closed doors, Ivanovski said the main motivation was the current situation on the political scene. According to him, the country is facing, on the one hand, an unjustifiably strong government and, on the other, an opposition that is failing to express and articulate the oppositional mood that is growing ever stronger.

He also spoke about the way the party is being led by its current chairman, Venko Filipče, whom he said he has known since he was 17 years old. Ivanovski stressed that he has nothing personal against him, but that he is convinced Filipče is not capable of bearing the burden of the role he has in SDSM.

“Perhaps no one wished him success as president of SDSM more than I did. And in the past period, I have continuously participated with my suggestions, proposals, and opinions, and not only I, but also some of the people who sat at that table with the best intentions. For example, I personally thought that Venko Filipče, as president, should make a complete break with SDSM, so that the party could be competitive and have a fresh start in terms of personnel, program, and concept. I know this, and I have no different opinion on it: yes, Venko Filipče is an excellent surgeon, not to say the best, that is not for me to judge, right, and I still hold that opinion, he always wants to help, but I, both in the past period and now publicly, and this will be the first and last time I speak about him as president of SDSM, say that he cannot handle that role. Is it because of a lack of capacity, is it ignorance, which is legitimate, but perhaps also a lack of will. I think it is the latter,” Ivanovski said.

In support of this position, he cited as an example the fact that, according to him, in the past period advice had been given in good faith and without asking for anything in return. However, as he put it, in response they encountered manipulation and a failure to tell the truth behind closed doors.