The disrupted resumption of the constitutive session of the Kosovo Assembly has further deepened the political and institutional deadlock in the country.
Të lidhura
None found
Albin Kurti, leader of the Vetëvendosje Movement, has asked for more time to reach an agreement with the other political forces, once again bringing both the possibility of a compromise and the prospect of a new election cycle to the forefront of discussion.
Tensions escalated further after Alliance MP Time Kadrijaj threw eggs at Kurti during the latest session, prompting presiding chair Avni Dehari to call security.
The continuing clashes between the parties and incidents in the chamber are raising doubts over whether the sides will find a way to break the institutional deadlock or whether the country is heading toward another round of voting.
Commentator Agim Vuniqi, speaking to “Bota sot,” argues that the quorum is becoming a weapon in the political battle rather than a constitutional principle.
He points to a contradiction in the opposition’s positions, noting that it previously cooperated with the Serbian List to secure parliamentary majorities.
“The paradox of Kosovo politics becomes even more evident when today’s positions are compared with past actions. The same parties that are now avoiding a political agreement to overcome the deadlock over the quorum required to elect the President did not hesitate in the past to reach political agreements with the Serbian List to govern together. These same parties also secured the necessary quorum and votes with the Serbian List to establish the Specialist Chambers, approving constitutional and legal amendments in line with the legislation that was in force during the period for which the former KLA leaders, including Hashim Thaçi and others, stand accused.
“Today, however, these same parties are asking the Vetëvendosje Movement not only to nominate the candidate for President, but also to secure the votes needed to elect that candidate, without first offering any political guarantee of support.”
According to Vuniqi, such an approach does not amount to parliamentary compromise but places the entire burden of finding the votes on the election winner.
“In essence, the demand is: ‘Nominate the candidate and then find a way to elect that candidate yourselves.’ This is not the logic of parliamentary compromise, but a complete transfer of responsibility to the election winner, while the opposition retains the right to block the process.
“In this context, it should not be forgotten that Vetëvendosje has signaled its readiness for a compromise solution, leaving open the possibility that either the position of Assembly Speaker or that of President could form part of a consensual agreement. This would not be the first time in Kosovo’s constitutional practice. The election of Atifete Jahjaga showed that, following the Constitutional Court’s intervention in the presidential election process in the Pacolli case, the crisis was overcome through a political compromise among the parliamentary forces.”
The commentator acknowledges that today’s circumstances differ from those in the past, but insists that history shows political compromise remains a path toward making the institutions functional.
“This does not mean that the circumstances then and now are identical. On the contrary, they differ both politically and legally. Nevertheless, the precedent shows that in parliamentary democracies, compromise is not a weakness but a mechanism for making institutions functional.
“Therefore, the question is not whether there should be a compromise, but why compromise is considered acceptable when it serves the interests of one side and rejected when it is intended to break an institutional deadlock. If political agreements have been acceptable for forming governments, securing parliamentary majorities and making decisions with historic and constitutional consequences, it is difficult to argue that they are unacceptable only when it comes to electing the President.”
Finally, he warns that a lack of political consistency could turn the quorum itself into a blocking tool.
“Consistency is the foundation of political credibility. Without it, standards risk becoming double standards, while the quorum is transformed from a constitutional instrument for guaranteeing legitimacy into a tool for obstructing political competition. This is precisely where the fundamental dilemma arises: Is the spirit of the Constitution being protected, or is constitutional procedure being used as an instrument of political warfare?”
Meanwhile, Professor Nijazi Halili, also speaking to “Bota sot,” views the current situation as more than a procedural dispute, describing it as a deep political crisis.
Halili stresses that the parties are treating the establishment of the institutions as a continuation of the electoral contest and calls the incidents inside the Assembly concerning and unacceptable.
“The repeated interruption of the constitutive session is now more than a procedural disagreement; it has become evidence of a deep political crisis and a lack of willingness to compromise. The political parties are treating the establishment of the institutions as a continuation of the electoral battle, even though their primary responsibility is to make the state functional.
“The incidents inside the Assembly are also concerning and unacceptable. When parliamentary debate is replaced by provocative actions, political tension exceeds the bounds of democratic competition. This damages the Assembly’s authority and deepens citizens’ distrust of politics.”
According to him, a political agreement remains possible, but it requires abandoning ultimatums and narrow calculations.
“A political agreement is still possible, but it requires giving up ultimatums, personal calculations and the practice of constantly blaming the opponent. If political leaders are unable to produce an institutional compromise, then new elections would not come as a surprise, but as a direct consequence of this political failure.”
Halili emphasizes that responsibility for breaking the deadlock rests with all political parties, especially those that received the greatest trust from citizens.
“Kosovo cannot be held hostage by party bargaining and conflicts. The institutions are not the property of political parties; they are mechanisms of the state and belong to the citizens. Responsibility for breaking the deadlock rests with all political parties, but particularly with those that received the largest mandate from the citizens,” Nijazi Halili concluded for “Bota sot.”
