Sixty-three municipalities in the country handed out 4,056,482 euros in financial aid, subsidies and grants to their residents last year. That is almost a million euros more than in 2024. The figure comes from research by the Centre for Civil Communications.

The year that money was spent was an election year.

92 grounds, 58,290 citizens

The aid was awarded on 92 different grounds. For a first child, for first-graders, for secondary school pupils, for school leavers, for young people, for those at social risk, for pensioners. School supplies, backpacks and firewood were handed out. Money was given for bicycles, scooters, digital devices, pellets and pellet stoves, air conditioners, facades.

A total of 58,290 citizens were covered, almost 13 thousand more than the year before.

The Aerodrom municipality handed out the most - 552,387 euros. Centar follows with 507,481 euros and 16 different grounds for aid, more than anyone else. Kisela Voda distributed 461,989 euros.

The real sum is higher than the one calculated. The City of Skopje, Chair and Saraj did not submit the requested data.

From 3,000 to 30,000 denars for the same child

The most interesting finding of the research is not the total, but the differences. Aid for a newborn ranges from 3,000 to 30,000 denars, depending on the municipality. Support for first-graders - from 2,000 to 8,000 denars.

So two children born on the same day, twenty kilometres apart, are valued ten times differently by the state they live in. Not because of need, but because of who happened to be mayor and how big the budget was.

The Centre for Civil Communications points out that there is hardly a municipality paying aid on the same grounds as another, and that the legal basis for some of these payments remains unclear.

Aid or pre-election campaign

Each of these items makes sense on its own. A backpack for a first-grader is a good thing. Firewood for a pensioner is a good thing.

But when the total jumps by a million euros in precisely an election year, and there are 92 criteria set locally with no clear legal framework, the line between social policy and pre-election distribution becomes a matter of goodwill rather than of rule.

Standardisation is not a bureaucratic whim. It is the only thing that separates a right from a favour. A right is exercised. A favour is remembered.