Seeking to push the election winner to convene the constitutive session, opposition parties have launched a series of political actions.
Të lidhura
None found
Tensions surfaced on Wednesday during the traditional “Diaspora at the Assembly” event. Several PDK and AAK MPs objected to the presence of MPs and figures from the Vetëvendosje Movement at the event and demanded that the Assembly’s constitutive session resume.
When VV representatives approached citizens to speak with them, PDK MPs responded with protests and chants, heightening tensions inside the chamber.
Clashes also occurred during speeches by VV officials. Acting Justice Minister Donika Gërvalla was unable to deliver her speech because of chants from PDK MPs.
According to reports, chants of “Democracy” and “KLA” were directed at Gërvalla.
Acting President Albulena Haxhiu faced a similar situation. PDK MPs demanded that the constitutive session resume, while she did not hold the planned press conference in the Assembly lobby.
Haxhiu announced that the conference would not be held as long as PDK MPs remained in that area.
During the developments in the chamber, several opposition MPs also attempted to remove some Vetëvendosje representatives, further escalating tensions.
The PDK continued its actions on Thursday. Several of its MPs blocked the entrance to the Government building, demanding that the Assembly’s constitutive session be convened and held that same day.
Although the session was not held on the day they had demanded, the MPs did not end their action. For the same reason, they were also seen in the Assembly chamber on Friday.
Deepening the Crisis Instead of Breaking the Deadlock
Prof. Dr. Sadri Ramabaja describes the intervention by PDK MPs, first outside the Government building and later in the Assembly, not as an expression of a culture of democratic debate, but as “political theatrics,” in which arguments are replaced by a public display of force.
According to Ramabaja, what happened in the Assembly ran counter to a culture of reasoned judgment and demonstrated the behavior of what he calls a “foolish person”—an individual who no longer sees any reason to resort to logic, argument and dialogue.
He believes that this manner of acting distances politics from its democratic mission.
In a statement to “Bota sot,” Ramabaja said that public debate turns into a primitive struggle for dominance when arguments give way to shouting, ridicule, humiliation, obstruction and political displays.
Under these circumstances, he said, politics no longer functions as the “art of persuasion,” but instead becomes a “crowd-control technique.”
Prof. Dr. Sadri Ramabaja noted that the absence of several prominent figures is not enough to reach a firm conclusion about internal divisions, although it may signal differing political approaches.
He stressed that it would not be serious to conclude that there is a split based solely on non-participation in a public action.
Nevertheless, Ramabaja did not rule out the possibility of differences over the manner of political action.
According to him, the absence of certain figures may indicate that not everyone agrees with the same form of public confrontation or the same strategy for addressing the institutional crisis.
He said such a situation could reflect differences in political culture within the party.
In Prof. Dr. Sadri Ramabaja’s assessment, public actions based on confrontation are more likely to worsen the crisis than to break the deadlock.
For him, “argument is the true currency of democracy.”
Ramabaja warned that the democratic functioning of institutions is harmed when this “currency” is replaced by political spectacle.
He emphasized that the space for institutional compromise narrows as soon as politics abandons argument and dialogue in favor of public pressure and theatrics.
According to Ramabaja, actions of this kind may mobilize a party’s electorate, but institutionally they create greater uncertainty and polarization.
In conclusion, he said democracy can survive political mistakes, but is seriously endangered if a culture emerges in which opposition is no longer treated as part of democracy, but as hostility that must be defeated by any means.
Actions Are Effective Only When Accompanied by a Serious Proposal
Gazmend Halilaj, a member of the Guxo Movement, said the opposition has the right to protest and criticize the Government, but noted that the country is in a sensitive political situation.
In his view, alongside its criticism, the opposition should also present clear and concrete alternatives.
Speaking to “Bota sot,” Halilaj described the PDK MPs’ action outside the Government building and later in the Assembly as more of an attempt to exert political pressure and stage an opposition spectacle than as genuine help in resolving the institutional crisis. He said that although the opposition has the right to challenge the Government and protest, at such a sensitive time its primary responsibility should be to offer solutions and contribute to making the institutions functional. According to him, it is not enough to blame the Government for the crisis without also presenting concrete alternatives.
Halilaj considers the absence of several well-known PDK figures from these actions to be a development that raises questions.
He stressed that citizens have the right to be informed about the specific platform the opposition is proposing to overcome the crisis.
Referring to Uran Ismaili, Bedri Hamza, Elmi Reçica and Rrustem Mustafa, Halilaj said their absence alone does not justify the conclusion that the PDK is divided. Nevertheless, according to him, when these figures do not participate in an action presented as the party’s position, reasonable political questions arise. If there are differing views within the PDK about how to proceed, he called that an internal party matter, but added that the public deserves to know the opposition’s concrete plan for overcoming the crisis.
Halilaj said the impression should not be created that every institutional crisis is automatically blamed on the Government. He recalled that, in a parliamentary system, all parties represented in the Assembly bear responsibility for the functioning of the institutions.
From his perspective, LVV has consistently demonstrated that institutional problems should be resolved within the institutions, not through political pressure in the streets. Halilaj noted that it is easy to organize an action outside the Government building and generate images for the media, while it is far more difficult to take responsibility and build a way forward in the interests of the state. For this reason, he called on the opposition to replace symbolic actions with concrete proposals. At the same time, he reiterated that institutional crises cannot automatically be attributed solely to the Government, as every parliamentary party bears responsibility for the functioning of the institutions.
According to Halilaj, anyone seeking to break the deadlock must demonstrate a willingness for dialogue, compromise and institutional agreement rather than merely making political accusations. He believes the opposition’s public actions can have an impact only if they are followed by a serious political proposal; otherwise, they risk increasing polarization and diverting attention from citizens’ real concerns.
He added that LVV should continue to demand that the interests of the state be placed above party interests, while any solution must be based on respect for the Constitution, the functioning of the institutions and the will of the citizens.
In conclusion, Halilaj said Kosovo’s citizens are tired of political spectacle and media pressure, as they expect work, functioning institutions and tangible results. He called on the opposition to become part of the solution, rather than merely part of the problem. If the PDK and the other opposition parties claim to have a better alternative, he said, they should present it to citizens and in the Assembly, because this is the healthiest path for the development of democracy and for measuring political support.
