25 Years Since the Ohrid Framework Agreement: Who Is Leaving the Indigenous Illyrian-Macedonian Majority Out of History?

By Isuf B. Bajrami

A historical, cultural and constitutional-legal perspective on inclusion, identity and the right to representation

On 13 August 2001, the Ohrid Framework Agreement was signed, a document that significantly changed the political and constitutional framework of the then Republic of Macedonia. The Agreement was conceived as a framework for securing the democratic future of the state, developing a peaceful and more integrated civil society, while respecting the ethnic identity and interests of its citizens.[1]

One of the fundamental principles of the Agreement is that the multiethnic character of society must be preserved and reflected in public life.[1]

Today, 25 years later, this Agreement is once again at the center of attention. On 12 and 13 August 2026, Skopje is marking its 25th anniversary with panels, discussions and public activities concerning interethnic relations, coexistence and the future of the country.[2]

This anniversary should not be merely a commemorative moment.

It should also be an opportunity for reflection.

And precisely here arises a question that deserves to be openly raised:

Can a multiethnic constitutional order be considered complete if it does not adequately reflect the historical identity and heritage of the indigenous population, which this thesis defines as Illyrian-Macedonian?

This question is not against the multiethnic character of the state.

On the contrary.

It arises precisely from the principle of inclusion.

The history of this territory did not begin in 2001

No political agreement can determine the starting point of the history of a territory.

The territory of present-day North Macedonia has a history that is much older than the political order of the 21st century. It has been shaped through numerous historical, cultural and political layers, which are the subject of archaeological, historical, linguistic and anthropological research.

In this context, the issue of Illyrian-Macedonian heritage should not be excluded from scientific or public debate.

It must be studied.

It must be documented.

It must be compared with the sources.

And it must be addressed openly, professionally and without political prejudice.

If historical, archaeological, cultural, linguistic and anthropological evidence supports a thesis of continuity of indigenous populations and their heritage, then this heritage cannot be treated as a peripheral element.

But precisely for the sake of scientific seriousness, a distinction must also be made between continuity of habitation and heritage of a territory and the direct identification of an ancient population with a modern identity.

This distinction does not weaken the thesis.

On the contrary, it places it where it belongs: in research, argumentation and scientific verification.

Therefore, Illyrian-Macedonian indigeneity should be treated as a serious historical, archaeological and identity-related issue, worthy of institutional and academic study, rather than exclusion or silence.

The multiethnic character is not being contested

This must be the clearest point in this debate.

The multiethnic character of the Republic of North Macedonia is not being contested.

The rights of Albanians, Turks, Vlachs, Serbs, Roma, Bosniaks or other communities are not being contested.

It is not being demanded that one identity gain by another losing.

On the contrary, the demand is that the principle of multiethnicity be implemented fully and equally.

If multiethnicity means coexistence and recognition of differences, then it cannot be built upon the exclusion of a historical heritage.

The inclusion of one identity does not require the exclusion of another identity.

The recognition of one heritage does not require the denial of other heritages.

This is also consistent with the spirit of the Ohrid Framework Agreement, which requires that the multiethnic character of society be preserved and reflected in public life.[1]

Therefore, the question should not be:

Multiethnicity or Illyrian-Macedonian heritage?

But:

How can a form of multiethnicity be built that also includes the historical heritage of the indigenous population?

From history to international law

The issue does not end with history.

It also takes on a legal dimension.

Modern international law recognizes a number of principles related to identity, culture, self-identification, participation, equality and non-discrimination.

One of the most important instruments is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 13 September 2007 through Resolution A/RES/61/295.[3]

The Declaration contains important standards concerning identity, culture, institutions, participation in decision-making, and protection against discrimination and assimilation.[4]

In particular, it recognizes rights relating to the preservation and development of cultural identity, participation in decision-making, and protection of the heritage of indigenous peoples.[4]

But we must be legally precise.

UNDRIP does not automatically establish a single formula for the constitutional composition of a state. It establishes international standards concerning the rights of indigenous peoples, while the concrete form of constitutional recognition remains a matter of the constitutional order of the state.[5]

This does not weaken the argument.

On the contrary, it makes it more sustainable.

Because the demand is not that an international document impose a constitutional amendment.

The demand is that international standards concerning identity, culture, self-identification, participation and non-discrimination be taken seriously in the constitutional process.

Self-identification and cultural identity

An important element of modern human-rights standards is respect for identity and self-identification.

A democratic state should not define identity solely from the top down.

Citizens should be able to freely express their cultural and identity affiliation, without discrimination and without unjustified obstacles.

The Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities is one of the principal European instruments in this field. North Macedonia signed it on 25 July 1996 and ratified it on 10 April 1997; the Convention entered into force on 1 February 1998.[6]

This framework concerns the preservation and development of the identity, culture, traditions and participation of persons belonging to national minorities.

Therefore, questions of identity cannot be treated merely as symbolic matters.

They have a legal dimension.

The ICCPR and the right to culture and participation

Another important instrument is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Article 25 guarantees the right of citizens to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives, as well as equal access to public service.[7]

Article 27 provides that persons belonging to ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities shall not be denied the right, together with other members of their group, to enjoy their culture, to profess and practice their religion, or to use their language.[7]

These provisions are important because they demonstrate that cultural identity, equality and participation in public life are part of the international protection of human rights.

They do not themselves create a formula for the constitutional composition of a state, but they establish standards that should be taken into consideration when the state addresses questions of identity and representation.

ILO Convention No. 169

The International Labour Organization's Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples is also an important international instrument.

It addresses issues relating to identity, institutions, culture, participation and the relationship of indigenous peoples with their lands and resources.

However, it must be clearly emphasized that North Macedonia is not a party to ILO Convention No. 169.

For this reason, the Convention should not be presented as a treaty creating direct obligations for the state.

It can be used as an international comparative standard for the way questions concerning indigenous peoples are addressed.

This legal distinction is important and makes the argument more professional.

The constitutional order

Here we reach the core of the issue.

The Constitution of the Republic of North Macedonia, through its amendments, contains provisions relating to identity, historical and cultural heritage, and the character of society.

In particular, Amendment XXXVI provides:

"The Republic protects, guarantees and cultivates the characteristics and the historical and cultural heritage of the Macedonian people."[8]

This wording is legally significant.

Because the Constitution itself recognizes historical and cultural heritage as a value that the state must protect, guarantee and cultivate.[8]

Therefore, the issue of history and identity is not outside the constitutional order.

It is part of it.

And precisely for this reason, the question must be raised whether the present constitutional order adequately reflects all the historical and identity layers that seek recognition and representation.

From symbolic recognition to constitutional representation

This is where the core of the demand lies.

If we accept the multiethnic character of the state and the need for identities to be reflected in public life, then we must also discuss the way these identities are reflected in the constitutional order.

Therefore, the issue of the recognition and reflection of Illyrian-Macedonian identity should not remain only at the level of historical or symbolic debate; it should be examined as part of the constitutional order, representation and the guarantee of cultural identity.

This is a demand for inclusion, not exclusion.

It does not require the removal of the rights of other communities.

It does not require the denial of the multiethnic character of the state.

It does not require the replacement of one identity with another.

It requires that a heritage claimed as indigenous not remain outside constitutional consideration merely because the issue is historically or politically sensitive.

What should be done?

If this issue is to be taken seriously, it must move from the level of statements to the level of an institutional and scientific process.

This process should involve historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, linguists, scholars of cultural heritage, experts in constitutional and international law, universities, state institutions and representatives of civil society.

The sources must be examined.

Archaeological findings must be analyzed.

Historical and linguistic data must be compared.

Cultural heritage must be studied.

And on this basis, an open debate must be developed on how this heritage can be reflected in institutions and in the legal and constitutional order.

Science must speak where politics has remained silent.

And politics must listen where science provides evidence.

A constructive process, not a new conflict

This is why the 25th anniversary of the Ohrid Framework Agreement can serve as the starting point for a new chapter.

Not to open a new identity conflict.

Not to dismantle the multiethnic character of the state.

Not to deny anyone their acquired rights.

But to open a constructive, principled and institutional process concerning history, identity, representation and the constitutional order.

Such a process would be in the interest of the state itself.

Because a democratic state should not be afraid of historical questions.

A state governed by the rule of law should not avoid reasoned demands for recognition.

And a multiethnic society should not see the recognition of one identity as a threat to another identity.

Recognition is not necessarily privilege.

Representation is not necessarily exclusion.

The protection of one heritage is not the denial of other heritages.

25 Years After Ohrid: Time for a New Chapter

Twenty-five years after the Ohrid Framework Agreement, the question should not be only what was achieved through that agreement.

We must also ask:

What kind of state do we want to build over the next 25 years?

A state where identities compete for space?

Or a state where different identities find a place within a just constitutional order?

A state where history is used as a political weapon?

Or a state where history is studied, documented and respected?

The answer should be the latter.

Therefore, the 25th anniversary of the Ohrid Framework Agreement can be more than an anniversary. It can be the starting point for a new chapter of legal, constitutional, academic and social dialogue.

A chapter in which history, archaeology, international law and the principle of equality are not used to divide citizens, but to build a fairer solution.

This is not a call for exclusion. It is a call for inclusion.

It is not a demand to replace one identity with another. It is a demand that Illyrian-Macedonian identity and heritage not remain outside consideration and the legal and constitutional order.

And above all:

This is not a call for conflict, but for a constructive, principled and institutional process that can lead toward a just and sustainable solution.

Because a state that is confident in its future should not be afraid of its entire history.

History should not be a field of exclusion.

It should be the foundation of dialogue.

Footnotes:

[1] Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Ohrid Framework Agreement, concluded at Ohrid and signed at Skopje, 13 August 2001, Basic Principles, paras. 1.2–1.3. The document establishes, among other things, the preservation of the multiethnic character of society and its reflection in public life.

[2] Public sources dated 12 August 2026 concerning the program marking the 25th anniversary of the Ohrid Framework Agreement in Skopje, including panels and activities taking place on 12–13 August 2026.

[3] United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Resolution A/RES/61/295, adopted 13 September 2007. The Resolution was adopted with 143 votes in favor, 4 against and 11 abstentions.

[4] United Nations, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, particularly Articles 3, 5, 8, 18, 19, 33 and 43, concerning self-determination, identity, culture, institutions, participation and consultation.

[5] United Nations, Audiovisual Library of International Law, explanatory materials concerning the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and its status as a declarative instrument establishing international standards.

[6] Council of Europe, Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, status of the Republic of North Macedonia: signed 25 July 1996, ratified 10 April 1997, and entered into force 1 February 1998.

[7] United Nations, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly Articles 25, 26 and 27. Article 25 concerns participation in the conduct of public affairs and equal access to public service; Article 27 protects the right of persons belonging to ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities to enjoy their culture, religion and language.

[8] Assembly of the Republic of North Macedonia, Constitution of the Republic of North Macedonia, Amendment XXXVI. The Amendment provides that the Republic protects, guarantees and cultivates the characteristics and historical and cultural heritage of the Macedonian people.

[9] International Labour Organization, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169). The Convention is the principal ILO treaty instrument concerning indigenous and tribal peoples. In this article it is used as an international comparative standard and not as a source of a direct treaty obligation for the Republic of North Macedonia.

[10] United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 23 (1994): Article 27 (Rights of Minorities), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5. The General Comment clarifies the nature of the rights guaranteed under Article 27 of the ICCPR and the distinction between minority rights and the right of peoples to self-determination.

The Land of Leka, 12.08.2026