By: Lutfi Dervishi
Three undesirable developments for elections
In one week’s time the campaign of the parliamentary elections will draw to a close; 24 hours later the Albanians will cast their votes confirming another four year term for Prime Minister Berisha or their will to try out Tirana’s Mayor Edi Rama.
The campaign drawing to a close is unprecedented in Albania, for at last three elements:
First, this campaign lacks confrontation, an exchange of opinions. After six parliamentary elections run on a majoritarian electoral system (1991, 1992, 1996, 1997, 2001, 2005), these elections of 2009 will be conducted on the basis of a regional proportional system. Distinct from previous elections, there was no confrontation between candidates in the zone, no candidates’ posters, no debate and subsequently, no conflict. This reduction of political tension on the ground during this campaign could be regarded as positive. On the other hand, however, what became more than obvious in the drafting of the candidates’ lists for deputies, was the power that the party leaders had, a power that risks transforming these political parties into parties dominated by sultans. All arrows targeted the leaders of the main parties, and at first glance, these elections, thanks to the system and the consultation with foreign experts, have assumed the appearance of presidential polls. But there is not even any confrontation between the two main leaders, a confrontation that the Leader of the party in office sought persistently during teh campaign. His chief opponent, Rama, chose not to put his name at the top of the list of candidates for MP, so that, according to him, he (Rama) respected the mandate that the citizens of Tirana had already given him up until 2011 to be Mayor of the capital. There has been no change in the stand of PM Berisha during the whole time and endurance of this transitional period, his campaign has been capillary, district by district, city by city, town by town and village by village, backed up by visible public investments, a very powerful campaign of televised advertisments and perpetually seeking a confrontation with his main opponent Rama. At least over the past three years, Rama has claimed he has inmplemented a different model of opposition, a model that moves away from confrontation with the opponent and has striven to create a spirit for “change” in rhetoric and form, according to the model of the US President Barack Obama. In these elections there has been an absence of confrontation in slogans.The Democrats in office, came out with the slogan “Albania is changing.” The socialists, “A new policy for change,” emphasizing the word “change.” The impact of these two slogans will be seen on 28 June, but, if not for the elections, “new policy for change,” has helped the Opposition leader in “eliminating” Fatos Nano from the next parliament, the historical leader of the SP, (Mr. Nano resigned from the chairmanship of the SP straight after losing the 2005 parliamentary elections. His public request to become a member of the upcoming Parliament proved to be weaker than his testimony and wish to continue very prolonged holidays).
Second, these elections are unprecedented again in terms of the way the media has covered the campaign. All of a sudden television reporters and camera crews had nothing to cover. The parties took care that their campaign rallies were transmitted to the public via the lenses of their own cameras. Employing their own camera crews and equipment, the township and village squares sometimes appear on the small screen the size of Tien an Mien in Beijing. The political parties managed to transform all the television stations of the country into centers of “rental news reels” and the only coverage the public sees on television screens is what is dished up by the two main parties. In the reports covering rallies, there is never any mention of numbers of participants; what the main issues laid down by the leaders were; what reply to one leader give to previous allegations made by the other leader; what do the experts have to say about the promises made; or any kind of confrontation with promises made in the past. What you get on the screen is an artificial picture, where thanks to the technology used, in every rally in townships with populations of ten thousand or so, you get the impression that the parties are pulling in hundreds of thousands of supporters.
In an effort not to upset party leaderships, television studio debates also suffered. The only platforms where voters can understand the stands of the parties on important issues, television debates have gradually dwindled, due to the decisions adopted by the parties themselves not to provide participants for these debates. The two big parties, using pressue and boycott of television programs, managed to exclude representatives of the smaller parties from the debate on major issues; they managed to dim to the maximum, the vital element of debate itself. There are no debateson key issues of the economy, employment, poverty, projects of development, the influence exerted by the global crisis on the country, and the participants in the debates that do take place resemble more “a cat walking on hot coals” more than anything else.
By always giving politics, the politicians and the institutions the lion’s share of time in daily news coverage, at the end of this election campaign the television stations have tasted the bitterness of a medicine that they themselves produced over entire months and years. When a politician is absent, it seems as though nothing is happening, as if there can be no debate between experts, technicians, interest groups, citizens, etc. What we saw was far more form and far less substance. In the Battle of the Screens those who lost are the television stations.
Third, the 2009 parliamentary campaign is the only one to date in which both bigger parties seek votes according to the proverb, “every man for himself.” In every previous election there has been a facade of cooperation with the allied parties, there have also been “extremities” where, for the sake of tactical votes, the leaders of both bigger parties have appealed for the electorate to vote for their smaller allies. Not any more.
Both party leaders, particularly over these past two months have not failed to forget to call on the electorate to vote for the number their parties come under on the list- the target was to eliminate the smaller parties, an aim which began with the changing of the Constitution in April 2008, through a unprecedented broad scale consensus between the DP and SP. The media rendered an outstanding service to this objective which in almost “every debate” excluded the bigger parties. We may see in the results of these elections, the removal from the next Parliament of the hsitorical leaders of the smaller parties; highly disciplined parliamentary groups and leaders of the two main parties who are more powerful than ever.
But before reaching this point, what is required are free and fair elections, the closing of the chapter of contested elections. Good elections advance Albania’s relations with the EU by at least one year; poor elections could perhaps distance Albania from the EU by a decade. This is what happened in the elections of 1996. At the end of the year 1995 Albania was ready to sign the SAA with the EU. Due to the elections of 1996,this process was delayed at least 10 years.
Although the democratic maturity of the political class is recognised and everyone hopes that these elections will mark visible progress, the ammunition of contesting the elcetions results is ready-at least for the Opposition. The Opposition has been complaining about the ID cards for months. As the reasons fade to contest the election results, the issue of the lists, the issue of voting centers, and what is more important-the isssue of the date of the elections and vote count administration ma also be debated. The past does not encourage one to place a bet on the outcome of the elections. It remains that the future will be decided on 28 June. This is the one day when the power is in teh hands of the voter and the politicians are powerless.
