By Henri ȩli
Several such institutions of liberal democracy as hunger strikes, boycott etc, have an accentuated moral character and moreover, it is precisely in their morals and character that the strength of these implements of democracy lies. However, this is not the case with the latest boycott which Edi Rama’s Opposition has decided on against the new Parliament that emerged from the 28 June elections. This boycott has the feel that it lacks character for at least two reasons: the first reason is because this is not a genuine boycott. It is a boycott with strings attached. This means, merely, that it has the symbolic component, but there is no content, it is not lucid and streaked with nuances. If Edi Rama assesses that these elections were sub-standard, then instead of replying to these sub-standard elections with a sub-standard boycott, he resorts to something which both is and is not a boycott. On the other hand, Rama lacks sufficient arguments for a full boycott before Albanian society, the International Community and local players, but on the other hand, he needs a boycott to justify his inglorious stay at the head of the SP. If Edi Rama really believed what he said, if he had the proof and the arguments, if he had faith in his cause, he could have called a full boycott; he could call on his electorate to protest in the streets and refuse to recognize an illegitimate government, refusing Parliament and everything it produces. Realistically speaking, this is what would be beneficial to the Albanian public. Genuine and real support for this boycott would then be a civil, individual and political obligation for all those players of sound reasoning who believe in the system and in the values of democracy. If he can’t achieve this, then, it would be well worth his while not to stage any kind of boycott, but recognize the realization of the 28 June process and allow the system to move forward. The second reason why Rama’s boycott is a political action void of character is because of its non-effect beyond the fence of the SP and the lack of impact it produces on the democratic system or negative consequences on the Socialist Party, and above all, on Opposition on the whole in Albania. The least that could be said for a boycott which is non-existent and lacks foundations is that it has no influence beyond the domain of the SP. Whoever does not believe that his reasons are politically real sees more clearly his internal goal in the SP. On the other hand, the SP, taking up a position on the outskirts of the political system even though it has the highest numbers in Parliament than any Opposition has had before, deprives itself of an effective struggle within the system and also Albanian society of a real Opposition. In democracy, the same institution with the moral strength within its ranks, such as a just boycott, is just as negative or valueless if we do not have to do with such a truth and the moral strength for which this institution exists. This is why Rama’s boycott with conditions is void of character.
