Gridlock in the Assembly deepens, political compromise fades, and new elections emerge as a possibility

The constitutive session of the Kosovo Assembly was interrupted again, deepening the political and institutional crisis in the country. Clashes between political entities are keeping the functioning of institutions blocked, while the possibility of new elections is increasingly being discussed.

The request of the leader of the Vetëvendosje Movement, Albin Kurti, for more time in order to reach an agreement with other parties has reopened the debate about a possible political compromise. However, alongside a consensual solution, the scenario of the country heading to new elections is also being included.

During the last session, tensions increased after an incident where Alliance MP Time Kadrijaj threw eggs at Kurti. As a result, the session chairman Avni Dehari called for security intervention.

The repeated political confrontations and episodes inside the Assembly hall have raised serious questions about the possibility of unblocking the institutions. It remains unclear whether the parties will find a common path or whether Kosovo will face another electoral process.

Vuniqi: Quorum is being used as a tool in the political clash

Opinionist Agim Vuniqi, in a statement for “Bota sot”, sees the quorum issue as part of the political conflict and not simply a procedural matter.

According to him, there is an inconsistency in the positions of the opposition parties, since the same entities that today oppose an agreement to overcome the institutional deadlock have in the past politically cooperated with the Serbian List to secure parliamentary majorities.

Vuniqi argues that the paradox becomes visible when today’s statements are compared with previous actions. The parties that currently refuse a political agreement to resolve the quorum problem and to elect the President have previously reached agreements with the Serbian List for co-governance.

He also recalls that these entities have secured the quorum and the necessary votes from the Serbian List for the establishment of the Specialist Chambers. In that process, constitutional and legal amendments were adopted in accordance with the legislation in force for the period for which former KLA leaders, including Hashim Thaçi and others, are accused.

According to Vuniqi, today the same parties demand that Vetëvendosje not only propose the candidate for President, but also secure the votes for his election on its own, without first giving any political guarantee of support.

For the opinionist, this approach does not represent a genuine parliamentary compromise. He assesses that the responsibility for securing the votes is being placed solely on the force that won the elections, while the opposition retains the possibility of blocking the process.

“In practice, the demand is that the candidate be proposed and then the proposer themselves find a way to elect him. This is not a spirit of compromise, but a complete transfer of responsibility to the election winner, while the opposition keeps the right to obstruct the process,” Vuniqi states.

He points out that Vetëvendosje has signaled a compromise solution, not ruling out the possibility that the post of Assembly Speaker or that of President be included in a consensual agreement.

Such a formula, according to him, would not be unfamiliar to Kosovo’s constitutional practice. Vuniqi cites the example of the election of Atifete Jahjaga, when the crisis was overcome through a political agreement between parliamentary forces, after the Constitutional Court’s intervention regarding the process of electing the President in the Pacolli case.

Vuniqi acknowledges that the current circumstances are not the same as those of the past period, both politically and legally. However, he emphasizes that previous experience shows that compromise can serve as a mechanism for making institutions functional.

“This does not imply that the situation then is identical to today’s. The differences are evident in the political and legal aspects. But the precedent shows that compromise in parliamentary democracies is not a sign of weakness, but a way to make institutions functional,” he says.

According to Vuniqi, the main issue is not whether there should be compromise, but why political agreements are accepted when they serve the interests of one party and rejected when they aim at institutional unblocking. He notes that if such agreements have been used for forming governments, securing parliamentary majorities, and making decisions with historical and constitutional consequences, then it is difficult to argue that they are unacceptable only in the case of electing the President.

The opinionist warns that the lack of a consistent political stance could turn the quorum from a constitutional requirement into an instrument of blockage.

“Political credibility is built on consistency. In its absence, standards can become double standards, and the quorum, instead of guaranteeing constitutional legitimacy, can be used to obstruct the political rival. Thus arises the question of whether the spirit of the Constitution is being protected or whether the constitutional procedure is being exploited as a weapon in the political clash,” Vuniqi concludes.

Halili: Without institutional compromise, new elections may become inevitable

Professor Nijazi Halili, speaking for “Bota sot”, assesses that the situation can no longer be explained as an ordinary procedural disagreement. According to him, the country is facing a deep political crisis.

Halili says that the parties are seeing the constitution of institutions as a continuation of the electoral race, while emphasizing that the incidents that occurred in the Assembly are unacceptable and concerning.

“The repeated interruption of the constitutive session has taken on greater proportions than a procedural conflict. It testifies to a deep political crisis and a lack of will for compromise. The parties are continuing the electoral battle within the constitution process, although their main duty should be the functionalization of the state,” Halili states.

He describes the provocative actions in the Assembly hall as a worrying development. According to him, when parliamentary debate is replaced by such incidents, tensions exceed the boundaries of democratic competition, the authority of the Assembly is damaged, and citizens’ distrust of politics increases.

The professor assesses that there is still a possibility for a political agreement, but this requires that leaders give up ultimatums, personal interests, and constant accusations against opponents.

“An agreement is still achievable, but for this it is necessary to abandon ultimatums, personal calculations, and the incessant blaming of the other side. If political leaders fail to produce an institutional compromise, new elections will not come as a surprise, but will be the direct result of this political failure,” Halili declares.

He adds that unblocking the institutions is not the responsibility of a single party. The obligation falls on all political entities, especially those that have received the greatest support from citizens.

“Kosovo cannot remain hostage to party bargains and clashes. Institutions are not the property of parties, but state mechanisms that belong to the citizens. All entities must bear responsibility for resolving the deadlock, but a greater burden falls on those that have received the broadest mandate from the citizens,” Nijazi Halili concluded for “Bota sot”.