Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

History magazine - researches
Reference:

Problems of Macedonian Orthodox Church Status in Modern Policy of the Historical Memory of the Republic of North Macedonia

Kyrchanoff Maksym Waler'evich

ORCID: 0000-0003-3819-3103

Doctor of History

Voronezh State University, Associate Professor of the Department of Regional Studies and Economics of Foreign Countries, Faculty of International Relations; Associate Professor of the Department of History of Foreign Countries and Oriental Studies, Faculty of History; ResearcherID: B-8694-2017; Scopus Author ID: 57193934324

394077, Russia, Voronezh region, Voronezh, Pushkinskaya str., 16, office 236

maksymkyrchanoff@gmail.com
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0609.2023.1.39724

EDN:

GLQPEJ

Received:

04-02-2023


Published:

09-03-2023


Abstract: The purpose of the study is to analyse the perception of the problems of the history of the status of the Macedonian Orthodox Church in the politics of memory of modern North Macedonia. The author analyses the role and place of church narratives in historical politics and the development of memorial culture. The novelty of the study lies in the analysis of the features of the religious dimension of the politics of memory in modern Macedonian society as a secular state. The article analyses the perception of church issues in modern memorial Macedonian culture. The article also shows that the politics of memory that forms and promotes the perception of the history of the Church in the Macedonian ethnic coordinates system determine on the development of Macedonian nationalism. It is assumed that the political elites of modern North Macedonia actively use the problems of the history of the Church consolidating national identity in politics of memory. The results of the study suggest that the memorial culture of modern Macedonian society in contexts of the perception of the history of the Church is distinguished by a nationalistic character, and the perception of church history in the collective memory of Macedonia develops in contexts of memorial wars with other Balkan societies, integrating the historical heritage of Orthodoxy on the territory of Macedonia into their own historical memories.


Keywords:

historical politics, historical memory, collective memory, memory wars, politics of memory, Macedonian Orthodox Church, church history, Ohrid Archdiocese, memorial culture, Macedonia

This article is automatically translated.

 Introduction.

Modern states cannot do without such an important symbolic resource as historical politics in the reproduction of political and ethnic identity. In historiography, a single definition of the concept of "historical politics" has not been proposed. There is a compromise among researchers, according to which the latter is understood as "a set of techniques and methods by which the political forces in power, using the administrative and financial resources of the state, seek to establish certain interpretations of historical events as dominant" [1]. By the 2020s, historical or memory politics had become a universal means of politically and ideologically motivated manipulation of the facts of the past in order to maintain certain forms of identity and loyalty to the elites in power. Historical policy is universal, its various elements are applied in most countries of the world.

In a number of States, the manipulation of elites in the field of history has been institutionalized, which has led to the creation of specialized memory institutions. Historical politics is not identical to academic historiography. The main participants in the memory policy are specialized institutions (if they are created by the authorities), public activists and the media, which form and reproduce in public spaces those images of the past, understood in the categories of "national history", which correspond to the current ideological agenda of the ruling groups.

Modern North Macedonia is no exception. The political elites of the republic, since gaining independence in 1991, have been actively using the symbolic resource of history, manipulating collective memory to form its ordered canon as the basis of memorial culture necessary for the functioning of the Macedonian national and political identity. The memory policy in Northern Macedonia, as in other countries, is characterized by significant thematic heterogeneity.

At different times, various aspects of the history of relations with Bulgaria and Greece, the problem of the status of Macedonians as a separate nation and the Macedonian language could become objects of ideologically motivated manipulations, which caused the memorial Macedonian-Bulgarian and Macedonian-Greek "wars of memory". Among the aspects of the past that contributed to the reproduction and functioning of the confrontational model of historical memory, a special place is occupied by the history of the Macedonian Church, which only on May 24, 2022 settled the issues of its status, being recognized by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which did not suit all parties involved in solving the Macedonian church issue.

The Macedonian Church problem: historical and political background. The Macedonian Church question is a set of problems and contradictions related to the status of the Church in the territory of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In 1966, the faithful of Macedonia, with the support of the authorities of the republic, asked the Serbian Orthodox Church to submit an autocephalous status, to which they were refused. In response to this, the authorities and loyal clergy initiated the holding of a Church-People's Council in Ohrid in July 1967.

The acute phase in the development of the issue began on July 19, 1967, when the Orthodox Church, geographically connected with SR Macedonia as part of the SFRY, proclaimed autocephaly [2]. In response to this, the next Council of the Serbian Orthodox Church declared the new Church schismatic. The reaction on the part of the authorities of the SR of Macedonia was the institutionalization of the Macedonian Orthodox Church, for which a seminary was created in 1967, and a theological faculty in 1977. The issue of the status of the Church became more acute after Macedonia gained independence. If Serbia could not accept the MPC due to canonical contradictions, then the Bulgarian-Macedonian conflict was burdened not only by ecclesiastical and organizational (until 1944, the territories of Macedonia were part of the Skopje-Veles and Ohrid-Bitola dioceses of the BOC), but also by political contradictions related to the status of the Macedonian language and identity.

Throughout the 1990s and early 2020s, the Church issue related to the status of the Church in Macedonia has acquired an international character. Realizing the contradictions of status, including the name of the country, the Macedonian authorities in 2004 adopted a "Declaration in Support of the Macedonian Orthodox Church", which provided for the existence of the MPC as the only recognized Church, which caused opposition from the authorities of Serbia and the SPC, since at that time there were several parishes operating on the territory of independent Macedonia, which They did not obey Skopje, but they were under the jurisdiction of Belgrade. Realizing its weakness in the international arena, in 2005 Skopje turned to Constantinople, offering Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople to mediate in the dialogue between the MPC and the SPC, which, however, did not lead to a resolution of the conflict, which by the end of the 2000s had escalated again.

In 2009 The MPC decides to change the name of the Church on the territory of Macedonia to the "Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archdiocese", which in fact became an attempt to appeal to the historical heritage and emphasize continuity in the history of the Macedonians and their Church. This decision aggravated the relationship not only with Serbia, but also with Bulgaria and Greece, leading to another wave of "memorial conflict", as the new Church declared its claims to the past, which by that time Serbian, Bulgarian and Greek believers considered "their own". In the context of the church confrontation, the authorities of Skopje in the second half of the 2010s took a number of conciliatory steps designed to improve relations with other Orthodox Churches.  It was within the framework of such a peacemaking line in 2017 that the Holy Synod of the MPC tried to symbolically get closer to Bulgaria, recognizing the Bulgarian Exarchate as its "Mother Church", establishing Eucharistic communion with it, to which the Greek Orthodox Church reacted, perceiving the actions of Sofia and Skopje as unacceptable.

In 2018, the Macedonian authorities stepped up measures towards the recognition of the Macedonian Church by holding a number of commemorative events, including "The 1000th anniversary of the Ohrid Archdiocese", "The 60th anniversary of the restoration of the Ohrid Archdiocese represented by the Macedonian Orthodox Church", "75 years since the Priestly Assembly in Izdeglavye", "200 years since the birth Metropolitan Parthenius of Zografsky", "1155 years since the Moravian mission of the Holy Brothers Cyril and Methodius" [3], which indicated the transformation of the memory of the past into an important resource for political mobilization and legitimization of elite decisions. Such events were in fact an attempt by Skopje to declare that a stable national Church of its own has developed on the territory of Northern Macedonia, integrated into the preservation and reproduction of Macedonian identity and collective memory.

By the beginning of the 2020s, the policy of the elites led to its results, which was preceded by the rapprochement of Skopje with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who expressed his readiness to settle the status of the MPC if the adjective "Macedonian" disappears from its name. On May 9, 2022, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople recognized the Church of Macedonia under the name "Ohrid Archdiocese", which became an incentive for the resumption and intensification of dialogue with the SPC and the BOC. Therefore, on May 24 and December 13, 2022, the autocephalous status of the Macedonian Orthodox Church under the name "Ohrid Archdiocese" was recognized by the church authorities in Belgrade and Sofia. The formalization of the position of the Church, whose status has been disputed for 55 years, did not lead to radical changes in the historical policy of the main participants in the dispute, actualizing the importance and significance of the church dimension in the memory policy of modern Northern Macedonia.

The purpose and objectives of the article. The author focuses on the ecclesiastical aspects of the memory policy in modern Northern Macedonia. The purpose of the article is to analyze church changes in historical Macedonian politics, and among the tasks is to study the use of church history in modern "memory wars", analyze the role of Church history in the development and functioning of Macedonian memorial culture, identify prospects for further use of church narratives in memory politics as an effective symbolic mobilization resource. 

The Ecclesiastical dimension of memory politics in Northern Macedonia. Macedonian historical policy in its ecclesiastical dimension has been carried out for a long time with the active participation of the state. Such activity of the authorities was the result of their awareness that the construction of statehood should be combined not only with the promotion of ethnic, political and civil, but also religious identity. The latter was of particular importance, since the history of Orthodoxy on the Macedonian territory was integrated by historical traditions and memorial cultures of Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece into their own national narratives, which automatically turned the history of the Church into a space of "memory wars". The latter in historiography, as a rule, is understood as "conflicts of particular identities and historical memories of various kinds of "imaginary communities"" [4, p. 68].

The collapse of the SFRY and the change in the status of Macedonia, which gained independent statehood, led to "large-scale changes in the symbolic inventory" [5, p. 155], which made the history of the Church an actual and effective resource of memory policy in confrontation with alternative memorial cultures of neighbors. The confrontational model of the functioning of the images of Macedonian church history was promoted by the position of the Macedonian elites, who insisted on the recognition by other Orthodox Churches of the "centuries-old existence" of the Macedonian Church [6] and "the continuity that our historical Church has with the ancient Ohrid Archdiocese" [7], which was actually an attempt to institutionalize the division of Church history between various national collective memories.

The desire to separate the Macedonian memory from the religious experience of its neighbors, however, did not prevent the political elites of Macedonia from holding that it was "the Ohrid Archdiocese that was an important determining factor in the history of the church, in the history of Christianity in these areas, since ... Christianity on the territory of geographical Macedonia was first brought, spread and preached by the Holy Apostle Paul" [8]. In this context, representatives of the elites actually integrate the past as one of the mobilization resources among the methods they use to consolidate and reproduce memorial culture.

History, as the American cultural anthropologist Jonathan Friedman believes, is "a representation of the past, closely related to the development of identity at the moment" [9, p. 195], as evidenced by the experience of the Macedonian Church as an agent of historical policy, actually forming its own layer of memory, integrated into memorial culture at the national level. Therefore, the history of Orthodoxy in the politics of memory of Northern Macedonia is interpreted through the prism of ethnicity, and a significant part of the authors are inclined to synthesize Orthodox Christianity with the ideas of nationalism, believing that "Christianity has become part of the Macedonian Slavic culture, part of Macedonian being" [10, p. 39].

Representatives of the elites of Northern Macedonia in their official discourse actively promote the instrumentalization of historical memory and its integration into the mechanisms of functioning and reproduction of identity. The Minister of Culture, Bisera Kostadinovska-Stoychevska, stressed in 2022 that Macedonia historically had "its own faith and its own church," which "are not abolished and are not introduced by decree." Therefore, in the official memorial culture, the Macedonian identity is perceived as primordial, since the Macedonians "preserved our church, restored the Ohrid Archdiocese in the image of the Macedonian Orthodox Church, generation after generation protected and preserved the Macedonian identity with primordial love." Within the framework of this perception of memory, the history of the church is integrated into broader contexts of identity, which is read as exclusively Macedonian: "there is nothing in our past to be ashamed of, so we should not turn away from it. Our language, our music, our paintings, our books, our dances, our houses, and our cuisine are all identical. And the fact that we are Macedonians is an identity, an identity that we inherit, and it depends on us whether we will carry it in our hearts" [11].

Moreover, the concepts of "Ohrid Archdiocese" and "Macedonian Orthodox Church" in the memorial culture of Northern Macedonia appear as synonymous, and the modern Church itself is positioned as the only legitimate heir of the medieval Archdiocese [12], which, in general, correlates with the dominance of nationalism as a universal language of narrative construction. That is why, according to M.V. Belov, "the nationalist revision has become a watershed between large groups of researchers, experts and public intellectuals" [13, p. 72] involved in the conduct of historical politics. Within the framework of a similar model of memorial policy implemented by Skopje in relation to church history, the facts of the past, interpreted in accordance with the ideological conjuncture, are "used to legitimize the state, to fight for equality with other peoples" [14, p. 470], which in the case of Northern Macedonia for a long time was burdened by the non-recognition of its right to own their own national church.

The promotion of just such a narrative indicates the tendency of elites to perceive identity outside the principles of historicism, which allows them to manipulate the facts of the past, projecting Macedonian identity onto those groups that did not possess it. Within the framework of the modern Macedonian memory policy, "history is objectively written as a certain concept of the self, which is based on a radical separation from any other identity" [15, p. 42]. In the Macedonian situation, it is Greece and Bulgaria that have the status of Other identities potentially claiming the medieval Orthodox historical heritage and its integration into their own memorial cultures.

In this context, the memory policy in Northern Macedonia is subordinated to the logic of particularism and the separation of its own memorial project from similar practices and constructs of neighbors. The narrative about the Macedonian Church as the "successor of the ancient Ohrid Archdiocese" [16] in the memorial culture of Northern Macedonia has undergone universalization and has become virtually a common place. At the same time, Economy Minister Kreshnik Bekteshi stressed that the recognition of the Macedonian Church means not only the recognition of multiple memorial experiences, but also indicates the possibility of achieving "good neighborliness and progress in the Balkans" [17], burdened by different and competing readings of the past on the part of the elites.

The position of the authorities of Northern Macedonia, who actively participated in the settlement of the status of the Church, initiating a change of its name, led to a memorial conflict with Bulgaria, as the Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church questions the legitimacy of the modern name of the Macedonian Church, insisting that "the successor of the Ohrid Archdiocese is the Bulgarian Patriarchate" [18]. This position of Sofia did not suit Skopje, where local participants in historical politics use the universal logic of the development of nationalism, "artificially imposing the modern ethnicity of ancient times" [19, p. 20]. In this situation, the political elites of Macedonia, represented by the state authorities, actually found themselves involved in the processes of constructing images of the past, which they imagined in the national coordinate system.

Macedonian elites have become actors in the politics of memory. On May 24, 2022, Prime Minister Dimitar Kovacevski stated in his speech in connection with the settlement of the status of the Church the importance of its role in the development of national historical memory, emphasizing that a "great historical day" had come in the history of Macedonians. Appealing to the legacy of the "holy brothers Cyril and Methodius", whose images were constructed in the Macedonian coordinate system, D. Kovachevsky pointed out the importance of obtaining autocephaly, which was perceived as recognition of "equality with others and recognition of its heritage in the spiritual greatness of the ancient Ohrid Archdiocese" [20].

In general, at the initiative of the elites, the perception of the Ohrid Archdiocese as "an authentic part of the Macedonian identity" [21] has been established, which is consistently attributed to the church history in the region as a whole. Such a logic of the development of memorial culture in Northern Macedonia emphasizes that "modern political and ideological battles can be won by emphasizing certain and silencing other moments of history" [22, p. 532], which is openly used by agents of memory politics in Skopje, resolutely actualizing the "Macedonian" and just as persistently ignoring the "Bulgarian" and "Greek" in the medieval history of Orthodoxy within the borders of modern Northern Macedonia.

As for Cyril and Methodius, they, on the one hand, in the Macedonian memorial culture are subjected to consistent Macedonization, being imagined as heralds of the subsequent development of the Macedonian language [23], and the Macedonians as a nation are positioned as keepers of the heritage of the "all-Slavic enlighteners" [24]. On the other hand, the appeal to their heritage and the honoring of saints in public spaces has become a systemic element of Macedonian memorial culture [25], becoming one of the civil rituals and invented political traditions. In such a situation, historical memory "helps in creating a common past and the idea of unity, which is especially important in new societies that are still developing a political community" [26, p. 426], which needs not only political, but also religious legitimation by conducting continuity between modern and medieval Churches.

In modern memorial politics, at the official level, the reading of the history of the Church through the prism of ethnicity dominates, while critical interpretations based on the idea that "the name of the Church never expresses ethnicity" [27] are actually ignored and marginalized. In addition, the official memorial canon actively promotes and reproduces the narrative that representatives of the Church historically associated with the territory of Macedonia participated in the "creation and affirmation of the identity of the Macedonian people" [28].

Within the framework of this perception of history, the struggle for the creation of the Macedonian Church, according to the elites, is quite legitimate, since "the great historical processes of formation and definition of nations, when Orthodox Christian peoples formed autocephalous national churches" [29], which began in the 19th century, proceeded unevenly, which put the Macedonians in an unequal position compared to the Serbs, Bulgarians and Greeks. Based on the dominant ethnic paradigm in Macedonian historical politics, the Macedonian mass media, as participants in the memory policy, at the end of 2022 welcomed the decision of the Patriarch of Constantinople to use the Macedonian language to congratulate the faithful [30].

In such a situation, the ethnization, that is, the Macedonization, of the history of Christianity in the modern politics of the memory of Macedonia becomes simply inevitable. Such a mutation in memorial culture was the result of the fact that most societies like the Macedonian one experienced the processes of "sovereignization, and then nationalization of history" [31, p. 24]. In particular, regarding Kliment Ohridski, the official memorial culture emphasizes that it was he who became "the founder of Macedonian spirituality and the patron of the Macedonian Orthodox Church" [32]. Moreover, the emergence of a de facto national Church was interpreted as the institutionalization of the "genuine Macedonian identity" in the field of Orthodoxy, and belonging to the Macedonian Church is perceived as a manifestation of national consolidation [33].

The elites of Northern Macedonia understand that such an identity, which also has religious grounds, needs "its" national saints. A step in this direction was the canonization of Kirill Peychinovich [34], which caused misunderstanding on the part of Bulgarian church and secular nationalist figures, since the latter perceive the "new" Macedonian saint as a Bulgarian Church figure and politician. The canonization of Joachim Krkovsky was accompanied by similar mutual claims [35]. Such a model of the functioning of memorial culture rigidly integrates the history of the church into the history of Macedonian nationalism, which, according to representatives of the elites, became "the realization of a centuries-old desire for their own and independent state, within which the people of Macedonia after World War II encouraged the creation of the Macedonian Orthodox Church, which called for spiritual ties with its original mother - the Ohrid Archdiocese" [36].

Such a policy of elite memory is based not only on emphasizing the role of the Church in preserving identity, but also in promoting greater visualization of the position of Orthodox hierarchs [37] on issues of historical memory and collective identity in public and public spaces. Based on this logic, the idea of the Macedonian elites that Macedonia as an independent state needs its own national Church has become a common place in memorial culture [38].  The visualization of the Church in the public space of Northern Macedonia is enhanced when the authorities organize joint events dedicated to the return of icons that were previously exported to the territory of the country [39], which is positioned as the materialization of cultural and historical heritage, perceived as an important component of the memorial canon. In turn, the Church reacts to this position of the authorities, not only declaring loyalty to it, but also actively engaging in the policy of memory, pointing out the importance of the values of nationalism based on "love for the Motherland, history, culture, language, sacred and folk heritage of our ancestors" [40].

Conclusions. Summing up the article, a number of factors should be taken into account that determine the main vectors and trajectories of the development and functioning of the church problem in the historical politics of Macedonia.

Church narratives play an important role in the memorial policy of Macedonia, since the creation of the Macedonian Church and the protection of its independent status have become elements of the process of national and state building of Macedonia. In the 20th century, before the collapse of Yugoslavia, the Macedonian church issue played a secondary role in memorial culture, since national and political problems related to ethnic and civil nationalism seemed to the Macedonian elites more important in defending their own interests. The breakup of Yugoslavia and the emergence of an independent Macedonia led not only to the internationalization of the Church Macedonian issue, but also turned church history into an important element of memorial culture and memory policy.

Therefore, the political elites of Macedonia in the 1990s began to pay special attention to the religious problem, perceiving religion as part of the Macedonian national culture and identity. In this situation, both academic historiography and intellectuals involved in the processes of reproducing collective memory in public and public spaces have made efforts to nationalize and Macedonize the history of Orthodoxy in that part of the Balkan Peninsula that became independent Macedonia in 1991. As a result, the Macedonian church issue led to symbolic memorial conflicts and "wars of remembrance" with Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece.

If in the case of Serbia, the memorial conflict had almost exclusively a formal status and concerned issues of the institutionalization of the church and its position among other Orthodox local churches, then in the case of the conflict of memories with the Greeks and Bulgarians, church history was burdened by the influence of ethnic and political nationalism. In the Bulgarian-Macedonian memorial conflict, the situation worsened due to the fact that until 1944, the territories of Macedonia were not only organizationally subordinate to the Bulgarian Church, but were also perceived by Bulgarian intellectuals as an integral part of the Bulgarian cultural and political space.

Therefore, Bulgarian society was not ready to recognize the independence of Macedonia not only ethnically, but also in church terms. As for the memorial conflict with Greece, it was burdened by phobias and fears of Athens that Macedonia would hypothetically be able to claim the Greek territories of the same name. In general, the development of church narratives in Macedonian memory politics was entirely subordinated to the solution of political issues related to the establishment and development of independent Macedonian statehood. In this case, church narratives played a secondary auxiliary role, being used simultaneously with other myths that were reproduced within the framework of historical politics and, as a result, replicated in the memorial culture of Macedonian society.

In general, the relatively peaceful resolution of the Macedonian church conflict in 2022 temporarily weakened the severity of the memorial contradictions of Macedonian society with neighboring states, which does not exclude the possibility of further growth of confrontation and its resumption, since historical memory in the Balkans is developing as a symbolic resource that is regularly used by elites to solve ideological problems.

References
1. Miller, A. I. (2009). Russia: Power and History. Pro et Contra. Historical politics, 3-4, 6–3.
2. Josif. Metropolitan of Tetovsko-Gostivar. (2017). The Proclamation of the Autocephaly of the Macedonian Orthodox Church at the Third Macedonian Church-National Assembly (Ohrid, July 17-19, 1967). Mirror, 8–9, 8–13.
3. ACNS: Confirmed the position on not changing the name of the church and the state. Radio Free Europe. 2018. October 06. Retrieved from https://www.slobodnaevropa.mk/a/29529197.html
4. Koposov, N. (2013). Historical concepts in a world without a future. How we write history. Eds. G. Garrett, G. Dufo, L. Pimenov. Pp. 57-93. Moscow: ROSSPEN.
5. Belov, M.V. (2022). Calendar politics in the post-Yugoslav states: a review. Historical politics in the countries of the former Yugoslavia. Ed. M.V. Belov. Pp. 154-158. St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriya.
6. Kovacevski, D. (2022, May 10). The historic decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is a recognition of the centuries-old existence of the MOC-OA. Government of the Republic of North Macedonia. Retrieved from https://vlada.mk/node/28743
7. Kovacevski, D. (2022, May 9). The decision of the Patriarchate of Constantinople brought the MOC-OA into union with other churches. Government of the Republic of North Macedonia. Retrieved from https://vlada.mk/node/28724
8. Zaev, Z. (2018). Ten centuries of connection and continuity with the source from which arose the spiritual sovereignty of the people who gathered around the idea of their own state and fought for it. Government of the Republic of North Macedonia. May 28. Retrieved from https://vlada.mk/node/14801
9. Friedman, J. (1992). Myth, History, and Political Identity. Cultural Anthropology, VII(1), 194–210.
10. Borisov, D. (2017). Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archdiocese. Mirror, 8–9, 37-47.
11. Kostadinovska-Stojchevska B. (2022, July 13). And "Ohrid Summer" is a confirmation of Macedonian identity as part of European culture. Government of the Republic of North Macedonia. Retrieved from https://vlada.mk/node/29563
12. Mitevska, M. (2022, May 10). What next after the canonical recognition of the Ohrid archdiocese? Radio Free Europe. Retrieved from https://www.slobodnaevropa.mk/a/what'snext-after-the-canonical-recognition-of-the-Ohrid-Archbishopric-/31842867.html
13. Belov, M.V. (2022). "Historical revisionism" in the criticism of post-Yugoslav historians. Historical politics in the countries of the former Yugoslavia (pp. 58–73). Ed. M.V. Belova. St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriya.
14. Rottier, P. (2004). Legitimizing the Ata Meken: the Kazakh intelligentsia write a history of their Homeland. Ab Imperio, 1(470), 467–486.
15. Friedman, J. (2001). History, Political Identity and Myth. Lietuvos etnologija. Lithuanian Ethnology. Studies in Social Anthropology and Ethnology, 1, 41–62.
16. Kovacevski, D. (2022, May 25). Let us rejoice and be proud of the acceptance of MOC-OA as an autocephalous church equal in the Orthodox community. Government of the Republic of North Macedonia. Retrieved from https://vlada.mk/node/28942
17. Bektesi, K. (2022, May 24). Congratulations to the head of the MOC-OA and all believers, good neighborly policies are of great importance for the entire region. Government of the Republic of North Macedonia. Retrieved from https://vlada.mk/node/28928
18. Bulgarian media: BPC recognized the tomos of the SOC on the autocephaly of the MOC. Radio Free Europe. 2022. December 14. Retrieved from https://www.slobodnaevropa.mk/a/32176053.html
19. Shnirelman, V.A. (2003). Memory Wars. Myths, identity and politics in Transcaucasia. Moscow: "Akademkniga".
20. Kovacevski, D. (2022). The autocephaly of the Macedonian Orthodox Church-Ohrid Archdiocese is historical news and an authentic part of the Macedonian identity. Government of the Republic of North Macedonia. May 24. Retrieved from https://vlada.mk/node/28927
21. Political reactions after Serbian blessing for autocephaly of MOC-OA. (2022, May 24). Radio Slobodna Evropa. Retrieved from https://www.slobodnaevropa.mk/a/31865808.html
22. Coakley, J. Mobilizing Past: nationalist images of history. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics. 2004. Vol. 10. No 4. Ð. 531–560.
23. Zaev, Z. (2021, May 20). Day of All-Slavic educators Saints Cyril and Methodius, in joint organization with the Slovak Republic: The missions of the holy brothers 12 centuries ago were unifying, just like today. Government of the Republic of North Macedonia. Retrieved from https://vlada.mk/node/25323
24. Kovacevski, D. (2022, May 24). We keep the vows of Saints Cyril and Methodius with special care and fidelity. Government of the Republic of North Macedonia. Retrieved from https://vlada.mk/node/28922
25. Prime Minister Kovacevski and a government delegation laid flowers at the monument of the Holy Brothers Cyril and Methodius in the UKIM campus. Government of the Republic of North Macedonia. 2022. May 20. Retrieved from https://vlada.mk/node/28881
26. Brüggemann, K., & Kasekamp, A. (2008). The Politics of History and the “War of Monuments” in Estonia. Nationalities Papers, 36(3), 425–448.
27. Vasic, S. (2022, October 08). We neither have territorial claims, nor do we seek the glory of the historical Ohrid Archdiocese. Radio Free Europe. Retrieved from https://www.slobodnaevropa.mk/a/nitu-imame-territoriali-pretenzii-nitu-ja-barame-slavata-na-istoriska-okhridska-archiepiscopija/32069910.html
28. Kovacevski, D. The monastery of St. Jovan Bigorski is a living testimony of the authentic Macedonian identity. Government of the Republic of North Macedonia. 2022. May 27. Retrieved from https://vlada.mk/node/28977
29. Zaev, Z. (2018, May 28). Ten centuries of connection and continuity with the source from which arose the spiritual sovereignty of the people who gathered around the idea of their own state and fought for it. Government of the Republic of North Macedonia. Retrieved from https://vlada.mk/node/14801
30. Bartholomew published the Christmas epistle in the Macedonian language. Radio Free Europe. 2022. December 21. Retrieved from https://www.slobodnaevropa.mk/a/32187778.html
31. Kasyanov, G. Holodomor and the construction of nations. Pro et Contra. 2009. May – August. Pp. 24–42.
32. A government delegation bowed before the monument of Saint Kliment Ohridski. Government of the Republic of North Macedonia. 2021. August 12. Retrieved from https://vlada.mk/node/27195
33. Kovacevski, D. (2023. January 7). With good thoughts and good deeds we can move forward. Government of the Republic of North Macedonia. Retrieved from https://vlada.mk/node/31654
34. Kiril Pejčinović canonized as a saint // Radio Free Europe. 2022. October 16. Retrieved from https://www.slobodnaevropa.mk/a/32085544.html
35. Canonization of Abbot Joakim Krcovski as a saint // Radio Free Europe. 2022. May 22. Retrieved from https://www.slobodnaevropa.mk/a/31862172.html
36. Zaev, Z. Ten centuries of connection and continuity with the source from which arose the spiritual sovereignty of the people who gathered around the idea of their own state and fought for it. Government of the Republic of North Macedonia. 2018. May 28. Retrieved from https://vlada.mk/node/14801
37. Prime Minister Kovacevski at a Christmas lunch with the head of the MOC-OA, Mr. Stefan. Government of the Republic of North Macedonia. 2023. January 9. Retrieved from https://vlada.mk/node/31661
38. Zaev, Z. The Orthodox people in our country deserve ecclesiastical independence and an autocephalous Macedonian Orthodox Church-Ohrid Archdiocese with the blessing and written decision of the Constantinople Patriarch Bartholomew. Government of the Republic of North Macedonia. 2018. September 22. Retrieved from https://vlada.mk/node/22579
39. Kostadinovska-Stojchevska, B., & Cvetkovski, S. The act of restitution of the icons is historical. Government of the Republic of North Macedonia. 2023. November 15. Retrieved from https://vlada.mk/node/31013
40. Stefan, To love and respect the homeland, history, culture and language. Radio Free Europe. 2023. £ànuary 06. Retrieved from https://www.slobodnaevropa.mk/a/32212402.html

Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

When in the late 1980s, in the wake of Perestroika, there was a weakening of the central government against the background of the crisis of official communist ideology and socio-economic turmoil, this could not but activate various centrifugal forces that, in the form of Popular Fronts or other organizations, came to power in the Union republics at that time. As you know, for almost seventy years, the official history of the Soviet Union insisted on the formation of a single community, the "Soviet people", in connection with which the republics declaring their sovereignty were forced to turn to the construction of their collective past. However, during this period, not only the Union republics faced this need: in the late 1980s and the first half of the 1990s, the parade of sovereignties spread to other states of Central and Eastern Europe. These circumstances determine the relevance of the article submitted for review, the subject of which is the status of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. The author sets out to examine the use of church history in modern "memory wars", analyze the role of Church history in the development and functioning of Macedonian memorial culture, and show the prospects for further use of church narratives in memory politics as an effective symbolic mobilization resource. The work is based on the principles of analysis and synthesis, reliability, objectivity, the methodological basis of the research is a systematic approach, which is based on the consideration of the object as an integral complex of interrelated elements. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the very formulation of the topic: the author seeks to characterize the ecclesiastical aspects of the memory policy in modern Northern Macedonia on the basis of various sources. Considering the bibliographic list of the article as a positive point, its scale and versatility should be noted: in total, the list of references includes 40 different sources and studies. The undoubted advantage of the reviewed article is the involvement of foreign literature, including in English and Macedonian, which is determined by the very formulation of the topic. The source base of the article is primarily represented by the materials of the periodical press. Among the studies used by the author, we point to the works of D. Friedman, V.A. Shnirelman, M.V. Belov, which focus on various aspects of collective historical memory. Note that the bibliography is important both from a scientific and educational point of view: after reading the text of the article, readers can turn to other materials on its topic. In general, in our opinion, the integrated use of various sources and research contributed to the solution of the tasks facing the author. The style of writing the article can be attributed to a scientific one, at the same time understandable not only to specialists, but also to a wide readership, to anyone interested in both the problems of historical memory in general and the status of the Macedonian Orthodox Church in the modern policy of historical memory of the Republic of North Macedonia, in particular. The appeal to the opponents is presented at the level of the collected information received by the author during the work on the topic of the article. The structure of the work is characterized by a certain logic and consistency, it can be distinguished by an introduction, the main part, and conclusion. At the beginning, the author defines the relevance of the topic, shows that the political elites of the Republic of North Macedonia have been actively using the symbolic resource of history since independence in 1991, manipulating collective memory to form its ordered canon as the basis of memorial culture necessary for the functioning of the Macedonian national and political identity. The work shows that "the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the emergence of independent Macedonia led not only to the internationalization of the Church Macedonian issue, but also turned church history into an important element of memorial culture and memory policy." The author draws attention to the fact that in 2022 the autocephalous status of the Macedonian Orthodox Church under the name "Ohrid Archdiocese" was recognized by the church authorities in Belgrade and Sofia. It is noteworthy that, as the author notes, "the concepts of the Ohrid Archdiocese and the Macedonian Orthodox Church appear as synonymous in the memorial culture of Northern Macedonia." The main conclusion of the article is that "the relatively peaceful resolution of the Macedonian church conflict in 2022 temporarily weakened the severity of the memorial contradictions of Macedonian society with neighboring states, which does not exclude the possibility of further growth of confrontation and its resumption, since historical memory in the Balkans is developing as a symbolic resource that is regularly used by elites to solve ideological problems". The article submitted for review is devoted to an urgent topic, will arouse readers' interest, and its materials can be used both in training courses and in research on historical politics. In general, in our opinion, the article can be recommended for publication in the journal "Historical Journal: Scientific research".