Kosovo’s Acting President, Albulena Haxhiu, sent an invitation on Friday to the leaders of political parties and their representatives for a consultative meeting on Tuesday, August 18, at 09:00.
Të lidhura
None found
Kosovo’s Presidency confirmed the invitation to the public broadcaster, explaining that it had been sent separately to the political entities.
The document stated that the consultations would focus on recent political and institutional developments and on the possibility of reaching an agreement on the election of a consensus president, which would also pave the way for the formation of the other constitutional institutions.
“In my capacity as Acting President of the Republic of Kosovo, I invite you to a consultative meeting regarding current political and institutional developments, as well as the importance of reaching an agreement on the election of a consensus President and, consequently, on the formation of the other constitutional institutions,” the invitation stated.
The meeting was scheduled to take place at the President’s Office. The parties were asked to confirm the attendance of their leaders or the person who would represent them.
However, the Democratic Party of Kosovo (PDK) and the Alliance for the Future of Kosovo (AAK) immediately announced that they would not attend.
On Saturday, the PDK called for the continuation of the constitutive session, while the Alliance accused the Vetëvendosje Movement of prolonging the institutional blockade with the aim of taking the country to elections.
Rejection and the Lack of a Negotiating Formula
Political scientist Ramadan Gjanaj considers the decision by the PDK and AAK predictable. According to him, this stance directly complicates efforts to find a solution to the political deadlock.
Gjanaj says that the two parties do not want to become involved in a process that, in their assessment, could serve only to legitimize a solution dictated by the current balance of political forces. He believes that without significant opposition participation, the election of a president, which requires a broad parliamentary majority, risks being followed by a lengthy blockade.
But, according to him, the main difficulty lies not only in rejecting a meeting. The bigger problem is the lack of a negotiating framework in which all sides have an interest in reaching a lasting agreement, rather than turning toward another round of elections, he told “Bota sot”.
The political scientist stresses that the issue is not limited to the meeting called by the acting president. Albin Kurti has also invited political parties to consultations with the same aim: finding a political solution for a consensus president.
According to Gjanaj, this shows that the debate has already gone beyond the format of a single meeting. The fundamental question is whether the parties are ready to enter into genuine negotiations and accept the compromises required by such an agreement.
He views the PDK and AAK’s rejection as both a matter of principle and a strategic calculation. In principle, the parties may believe that they should not legitimize a process that does not offer sufficient guarantees of a genuinely consensual solution.
Politically, declining the invitation allows them to avoid entering negotiations without certainty about the outcome and to maintain pressure for new elections, a scenario that could benefit them. Gjanaj describes this as a familiar opposition strategy: refusing to support a solution that could primarily strengthen the party that came first in the elections.
Nevertheless, he distinguishes between rejecting the format and rejecting an agreement. If the opposition does not accept this method of negotiation, all sides remain responsible for finding an alternative that would create the minimum trust necessary. A consensus president, Gjanaj stresses, cannot be elected solely through parliamentary numbers, since an agreement acceptable beyond the majority is also required.
For a compromise between the governing side and the opposition, a candidate acceptable to both sides must first be found. That person could be a nonpartisan figure or a politician with broad support.
Gjanaj adds that the agreement should not be limited solely to the president’s name. It should include clear mechanisms for consultation and the sharing of political responsibility, particularly on issues related to Kosovo’s international obligations, the dialogue with Serbia, and the implementation of the Brussels and Ohrid agreements.
In addition, he says, there must be guarantees that neither side can portray itself as a bystander or a victim when a decision carries a high political cost, if it was made במסגרת a shared responsibility.
This would be particularly important for a possible Vetëvendosje-LDK coalition. If such a government were faced with concrete demands to implement the obligations arising from the Brussels dialogue and the Ohrid Annex, both parties would have to share the institutional responsibility and political cost.
Without these elements, Gjanaj warns, even an agreement on the president would remain fragile and could fail during the first genuine political crisis.
The political scientist does not rule out the possibility of new elections if the PDK and AAK continue their rejection and if a stable basis for an agreement with the LDK is not reached. However, he stresses that resolving the presidential issue would not automatically mean the end of the political crisis.
According to him, the biggest challenge would emerge after the agreement, when the next government would have to make difficult decisions concerning Kosovo’s international obligations and the dialogue with Serbia. If mechanisms are not created to compel the partners to share the cost of joint decisions, the risk of a new crisis will remain high.
Therefore, new elections are a real possibility, but they would not necessarily resolve the underlying problem if the parties continue failing to build mechanisms for cooperation and shared responsibility. For Gjanaj, Kosovo’s challenge is not only the election of a president, but also the creation of political relations and institutions that make the agreement sustainable.
He believes that political partners do not need to fully trust one another, but the system must ensure that both sides have an interest in respecting the agreement.
The LDK Also Rejected the Meeting
One day before the date scheduled for the consultations, the Democratic League of Kosovo also rejected Haxhiu’s invitation.
LDK leader Lumir Abdixhiku said in a televised statement that his party would agree to meet only with the leader of the Vetëvendosje Movement.
“We hold meetings with party leaders. In this case, the only meeting we can have is with the leader of the Vetëvendosje Movement, Albin Kurti. In our view, Ms. Haxhiu is a member of parliament, and in this process we can speak only with those responsible for this matter,” Abdixhiku said.
Mehmeti: The Rejection Is Spiteful
Opinion writer Gani Mehmeti described the PDK and AAK’s rejections as bad and spiteful actions. In a conversation with “Bota sot”, he said that the parties were angry about the election result and at the Vetëvendosje Movement.
According to Mehmeti, the PDK and AAK have not accepted their defeat in the June 7, 2026 elections or in the previous elections, which, he says, they have lost several times in a row. He claims that their dissatisfaction is so great that they do not even want to discuss the election of Kosovo’s president.
Mehmeti said that elections are not won solely through desire or promises, but also through achievements. He criticized the two parties, recalling that they had previously been in government and in power, while, according to him, they had neglected the state by focusing on power.
He considers their position unprincipled and believes that it makes resolving the deadlock and forming Kosovo’s institutions extremely difficult. According to him, their treatment of Albulena Haxhiu, by telling her that she is not the president, is cynical.
The opinion writer argues that if the parties acted on principle, the state should be placed above party and personal interests. He views the rejection as a strategy to weaken the functioning of the Vetëvendosje Movement and Kosovo’s government.
Mehmeti says that the lack of negotiations could block the functioning of the institutions, since voting requires the presence and support of two-thirds of the deputies. According to him, such behavior would resemble only that of Kosovo’s enemies, who would not want the institutions to be formed and the country to move forward.
To reach a compromise, the governing side and the opposition must sit down and discuss the election of Kosovo’s president. As for the Assembly and the government, Mehmeti says, the Vetëvendosje Movement has enough votes and would not face a problem.
He adds that the opposition should not hold grudges because none of the other parties came first. These parties, he recalls, have previously been in coalition and functioned well.
Mehmeti accuses the opposition parties of being angry with Albin Kurti, but says that all political entities are responsible for electing the president and should help with the process.
He views the rejection as a serious threat in the crisis in Kosovo and notes a change in the opposition’s position compared with the past. According to him, in previous cases, when the Assembly and government were formed without prior talks on the presidency, the opposition complained that the post should also have been discussed.
Now, however, when Kurti is seeking to hold negotiations on the president before the formation of the Assembly and government, the opposition is calling for precisely the opposite: first forming these institutions and then electing the president.
Mehmeti concludes that the failure to elect the institutions is jeopardizing aid from the EU and Kosovo’s institutional functioning, saying that the country has been without institutions for too long.
PERMBAJTJA: Kosovo, AAK, Albulena Haxhiu, LDK, PDK, president, rejection, meeting
