National issues demand he greatest possible consensus. However, consensus is one thing, and political ulterior motives pursued in its name are a very different matter.
It is one thing to try to forge a national position, and quite another to try to apportion to other parties the government’s responsibilities and political cost.
On the FYROM naming issue, the government sought above all to reap the political benefits, and only as an afterthought pursued the support of opposition parties.
The prime minister himself chose a strategy with which he aspired to divide the opposition, so as to mask the disagreements with his own coalition partner.
The result is that he never achieved the minimum of trust that is needed to build consensus among political parties.
The opportunistic political speculation of the government bred suspicion in the opposition.
The prime minister insists on the tactic of pursuing gains for himself, and losses for everyone else. He persists in not seeking support, but rather fellow culprits.
Naturally, the opposition is unwilling to provide an alibi, either through one-on-one meetings with the PM, or by convening the Council of Political leaders under the President of the Republic.
Hence, if it is true that national issues demand a maximum consensus, it is equally true that a government must have a clear and unified position on the issue which it is negotiating.
It must approach the issue with straight talk.
