A critical view on EU report on Albania

By Henri ȩli
The impression the 2007 EU Report leaves in its wake, conjures up reminders of the times of Communist self-criticism. No parallel can be drawn between that and the rationale behind the drafting of the Report, but the message one gets from reading it, is that the reforms must be deepened, that there must be a dialogue between the ruling majority and the opposition, the justice system must be reformed, there must be an electoral reform and so forth. There are at least three issues which are left wide open in the EU Report, which have not escaped the Rapporteurs of European bureaucracy, which for all its sluggishness, is one of the most professional bureaucracies of our time.
First, the report takes note of the lack of progress in the reform in the justice system, which is key to the efforts aimed at improving the rule of law and making it more effective, a fundamental aspect of the proclaimed fight against corruption, and, in the final analysis, the main mechanism, through which a liberal democracy is guaranteed and perpetuated every day. During a period of 26 months, since the Democrats came to power, not even a single article of a single draft law has arrived at the Parliament or has been approved by it, for this simple reason: the consensus between the government and the opposition needed in order to amend the legislative framework of the reform in the justice system has failed. When one speaks of the consensus having failed, it must be said that it is the government that has failed, as the more powerful party, which is supposed to offer a structure to the dialogue and to find a compromise with the opposition. The government has failed to find ways of making specific concessions to the opposition in order to secure its votes for the reforms in the justice system. On the contrary, even those opportunities for restarting the reforms in the justice system that may have existed after the election of the new President of the Republic, Bamir Topi were shattered in Parliament on Monday following the dismissal of the Attorney General, Theodhori Sollaku.
Second, the electoral reform in all its elements is the other issue on which the EU is really insisting. The failure of this reform so far, the intentional protraction and delays of the reform – that it is clear no government of this country ever intends to complete – is one of the most profound responsibilities of the current Majority. This is a great disappointment indeed. Today’s majority – yesterday’s opposition – was one of the greatest victims of the violation of free elections. But until today, the majority has not scored even a single minimal improvement of the standard related to free and fair elections in this country. It has not done so even for those standards that do not require “the votes of the opposition,” such as the national voters’ register, the new ID cards, etc. A bogged down, stagnant electoral reform does not bode well for the 2009 elections.
The third, and most delicate of the three issues, is the acknowledgment by the EU of the election of the new President of the Republic and the “reasonable” parliamentary consensus through which President Topi was elected. Here we have a typical example of the phraseology and catchwords of European bureaucracy, which are void of any meaning that would relate to the local context and developments; a context that, although miniscule in the strategic perspective of Brussels, does actually change the essence of developments and realities. As the initial tests relating to the “Sollaku” affair show, Bamir Topi’s presidency is not only failing to solve the crisis stemming from the absence of a bipartisan consensus, but it is creating the grounds for the destruction of every opportunity to find this consensus. By presenting the parliamentary majority with an opportunity to strengthen its power and take control of the remainder of the institutions, this “president elected by reasonable consensus”, could once again upset the balance on the institutional scene, carrying us back to the perilous times of the so-called “Blue State,” of the years 1992-1997, or of the “Rose State” of the years 1997-2002. Both of these experiences would be traumatic to the Albanian democracy.
Another year has almost passed faced with the same situation of shortcomings that appear to be endemic to Albanian democracy: an unjust justice system, elections that can be stolen, disequilibrium of powers. So the EU’s message about getting down to it and deepening reforms sounds at the very least as a huge irony.