Try google-ing “parliamentary boycott”. Immediately after a news link on the Albanian Socialist Party parliamentary boycott, come links on Liberia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Papua New Guinea, Armenia, Palestine and so on and so forth. Google is no political analyst and certainly no well-informed stance can be taken upon looking at a screen of search results. Yet, it is very telling, even if from a merely symbolic perspective, that Albania’s parliamentary boycott finds parallels in the above-mentioned, very troubled, countries.
That should not lead anyone to snub a parliamentary boycott. Civil disobedience actions and tactics abound the world, and some, like the anti-colonial movement led by Gandhi in India, have left an indelible mark on world history, and have inspired many. Dignified, non-violent, principled stances to injustice, be it colonialism, apartheid, or other forms of oppression are impressive enterprises.
Rule based on illegitimate elections is a form of oppression by way of not representing popular will. The Socialist Party in Albania is trying to mount a cause based on the failure of the last elections to meet international standards of free and fair elections. Even though the ODHIR/OSCE report has not yet come out, we all know how the elections went and we all know we will hear another ‘better but not good enough’ from our international tutors. Truth be told, the elections were indeed better but not good enough. They are our best elections so far. Let us not forget the reference points in the past are very poor, though, and that our comparisons ought to generally start referring to our aspirations, and no longer our past.
So there seems to be a cause – the very foundations of democracy, the legitimacy of the past elections. Is the Socialist Party, as represented by its leader Edi Rama, a legitimate promoter of this cause, however? Legitimacy in this case is derived from the SP ranks and electorate, from Albanians overall, and from the SP conduct in the elections.
In terms of party ranks, the SP leader definitely does not enjoy uniform legitimacy. And that is fine. Internal party debate is healthy. First though, even that much of unison in pursuing this cause that we observe in the media seems forced. Such a suspicion is easily supported by recent non-transparent conduct of SP activities, especially the Party’s Congress, from which the media had been allowed to broadcast Edi Rama’s speech only and the little bit more we saw was almost paparazzi work. Furthermore, the deviant voices from the Socialist Party go beyond engagement in healthy inner party debate. They are fundamentally opposed to the grounding, articulation and approach of pursuing this cause.
In terms of the SP electorate and Albanians overall, attempts will start in the next couple of days to garner support and legitimacy. The SP leader, Edi Rama, will start a tour of the country meant to argue to Albanians his stance. Ben Blushi, SP leadership member will do the same, to argue the opposite.
In terms of SP conduct during the elections, legitimacy is again lacking. During the electoral campaign, SP conduct fared no better than DP. Both completely manipulated broadcasting of campaigns, both made use of children in campaigns, both made use of adults to fill up squares, just to recall a few examples of many. Furthermore, the fact that all commissioners signed electoral documentation sharply erodes SP legitimacy to mount a case on the invalidity of elections. The persistency of vagueness in terms of the formal procedures to be followed, legal ways of contesting the elections, even after all commissioners have put their validating signatures on legally consequential documentation, does not help. In fact, the SP is the first interested party in clearing that vagueness.
Quite the contrary, however, the SP enhances obscurity. While the leader, Edi Rama, elaborately articulates the SP stance of ‘conditional boycott’ that does not turn its back but its eyes on parliament, he does not clarify. He lists the conditions upon which participation in parliament depends, but again he does not clarify. Why is the SP leader putting conditions that combined together rebuke the entire electoral system he himself chose? If a law were necessary to sanction a parliamentary investigation of the elections, why did the opposition not work on that prior to the elections, alongside the Electoral Code? Why is he bringing up the issue of the National Council of Radio and Television now, after having been an accomplice in media capture during the electoral campaign? And why does the case of the late MP Fatmir Xhindi impede the Socialists from recognising the elections?
There are many more questions that need clarifying. But one thing is clear. The Socialist Party and Edi Rama lack legitimacy, from all sources, to mount such a case the way they are for democracy in Albania. The lack of legitimacy directly affects their ability to successfully pursue the cause. Acts of civil disobedience minimally require solid ground and facts for a cause, good articulation of the cause, and superior ethical, moral or political standing of the promoters of the cause. In the fulfilment of all these standards of dignified and principled civil disobedience, the Socialist Party and leader Edi Rama might have improved, but are not good enough.
