Following the marathon protests known as the “Flamingo Revolution,” Prime Minister Rama has promised a new platform for communicating with citizens, but experts warn that it is a new version of an old idea that does not solve governance problems.
Të lidhura
None found
Rama made the announcement on August 24, during a meeting in Pogradec with the government cabinet and Socialist Party leaders. He said every request or concern submitted through the platform would be tracked in real time and receive a response.
“People’s requests and complaints cannot be like bottles containing final messages that were thrown from ships as they sank in the ocean,” the prime minister said.
However, “PasqyrAlbania” is not viewed as a genuine innovation, but as a new name for an earlier promise.
Since the end of 2021, the government has operated the “Albania We Want” platform, a state mechanism supported by the law on co-governance.
The political promises and legal framework at the time envisaged precisely this kind of direct, real-time communication between citizens and institutions.
Under those plans, citizens would receive answers to their problems and would also be able to influence the drafting of government policies.
Asked what had failed to work with the “Albania We Want” platform and what the new initiative aims to change, the Prime Minister’s press office said that “PasqyrAlbania” would be “an entirely new experience.”
According to the press office, the platform will also incorporate “Albania We Want” and e-Albania.
“At the same time, however, they themselves will also be presented in a new version, in which Artificial Intelligence will play a role that has been absent until now,” the Prime Minister’s press office said.
Political analysts believe Rama interprets governance problems primarily as communication difficulties. According to them, his proposed way of overcoming these problems involves bypassing institutions and centering the relationship between citizens and those in power on the prime minister.
Journalist Lutfi Dervishi described “PasqyrAlbania” as more of a continuation of an existing idea than a new concept of governance, comparing it with the previous platform and the law on co-governance.
“In essence, it looks more like a new version of an old idea than a new philosophy of governance,” Dervishi said.
He acknowledged that the new platform may be more technologically advanced, but warned that “technological innovation should not be confused with institutional responsibility.”
“In an administration that functions normally, citizens should not need a special mechanism to force the administration to do what it is supposed to do,” the journalist added.
PR operation for governance problems
During his 13 years in power, public communication and daily propaganda about the government’s achievements have been among the main features of Edi Rama’s administration.
Major public investment projects were presented in the government’s virtual world through 3D images, even before work began on the ground. Some of them were later linked to corruption scandals in which senior officials have been investigated or tried for corruption.
After three months of continuous public protests, known as the “Flamingo Revolution,” Rama has spent weeks talking about reshaping the relationship between the government and citizens. He initially mentioned a document called “Besa,” before later presenting the “PasqyrAlbania” platform.
But it remains debatable whether deep-rooted governance problems can be solved solely by improving communication.
Ermal Hasimja, a political science lecturer, said the prime minister is trying to use the “communication improvement operation” to justify the consequences of his governance.
“The problem is that the government serves a minority of people, not everyone. The minority reaps the benefits, while the majority gets ‘communication,’” Hasimja stressed.
Eduart Gjokutaj, head of ALTAX, an organization focused on transparency and sustainable development policies, also argues that a better communication channel is not enough to overcome the crisis of trust.
“It is connected to keeping promises, transparency in decision-making, respect for institutions, checks on power and accountability for results. If citizens are heard but institutions are not held accountable for what they promise and do, the platform risks becoming a tool for managing dissatisfaction rather than a reform of governance,” Gjokutaj said.
According to him, even if the “PasqyrAlbania” initiative proves successful, it does not in itself constitute “a new model of governance.”
“Otherwise, we have a new tool for a familiar mechanism,” Gjokutaj stressed.
Dervishi notes that this mechanism also creates a paradox: the government can take credit for correcting a problem that it created itself or failed to resolve through its own structures.
“After 13 years in power, the question is no longer only how well the government communicates with citizens, but why intervention from above is needed to receive a normal response from institutions and the administration,” he said.
According to the journalist, the same question applies to “Pasqyrë Albania,” which Rama has presented as a new way to submit requests or concerns to institutions and track in real time how they are handled, as well as who is responsible for resolving them.
Rama presents himself as the “Solution”
At the event in Pogradec, the prime minister also gave a concrete example of how he envisions communication with citizens. He showed a viral video of his meeting with an elderly man in a village in Pogradec.
The elderly man, who had waited for hours to meet Rama, asked him to build a 4-kilometer road in the village where he lived, without first approaching the relevant institutions.
For Dervishi, this episode reflects the centralized communication model the prime minister has built and continues to reinforce.
“He bypasses the intermediaries: the administration, institutions, the media, the opposition and often even the ministers themselves. And he presents himself as the ‘Solution.’ Ultimately, this creates a relationship in which a citizen with a problem no longer deals with the ‘state,’ but turns to the center of power for a solution,” Dervishi said.
According to him, the situation creates a contradiction, because “centralization is presented as the cure for the dysfunction of an already highly centralized administration.”
Dervishi adds that the new communication initiatives do not necessarily address the causes of the dissatisfaction expressed in the protests. On the contrary, they may shift attention away from governance problems and toward the direct connection between citizens and the prime minister.
He considers this “the main risk,” because “in a democracy, the relationship should be between the citizen and the institution, not between the citizen and the prime minister.”
Gjokutaj warns of the same risk if the platform creates the impression that problems are solved through intervention by the prime minister or political leaders, rather than through the normal functioning of institutions.
“This would further strengthen the personal relationship between citizens and those in power, instead of the relationship between citizens and the state,” he said.
“Governance cannot be built on the idea that every problem faced by a citizen must be resolved through intervention by the central government. In a functioning state, citizens should not have to seek a favor or political intervention to receive a service guaranteed to them by law. Responsibility must lie with the institution, not the leader,” Gjokutaj concluded.
