By Ekrem Spahiu
Të lidhura
None found
Albania is carrying out its fourth territorial reform in 36 years of democracy. In the face of this political obsession, a legitimate question arises: whom has it served so far, and whom will the new reform serve?
The 2014 reform reduced the number of local government units from 373 to 61 municipalities! The opposition did not participate in that reform at all, leaving the ruling party (PS) free to create tailor-made municipalities!
Now, after nearly 12 years of its implementation, a new map is being discussed, with the PS seeking 46 municipalities and the PD 100! It is clear that the Territorial Reform will once again be subjected to political calculations: the 2027 local elections will be held under the new territorial organization, and the Socialist Party is insisting on passing this law alone, ensuring that the new administrative map, too, remains an electoral map benefiting the PS rather than citizens!
Territorial reform is common in Europe, but it offers us a very important lesson: territorial reform must be part of the state’s long-term architecture, not merely a change in the number of municipalities. Albania, however, focuses precisely on the number and the partisan electoral benefits arising from that number, rather than on functionality.
While the PS and PD have presented their drafts for the new Territorial Reform, Albania has already had a model of local government that proved functional: the model from the period of the Albanian Kingdom, when local government was designed and organized by leading international experts, guided by Western-style models and adapted to Albania’s conditions.
During the Albanian Kingdom (1928–1939), through the involvement and under the leadership of King Zog, important steps were taken toward establishing a modern Western administration and, within this framework, administering local interests. The hierarchy of local administration followed this structure: Central government → Prefecture → Subprefecture → Municipality/Commune → Village. The prefecture was the principal territorial unit. The country was divided into 10 prefectures. Each Prefecture was headed by a Prefect, who represented the government in the territory. He held significant administrative and executive powers. He was not elected by the people but was part of the state administration and appointed by the central government.
The prefectures were divided into subprefectures. Their number was changed only once: in 1927, the country was divided into 39 subprefectures, while in 1934 their number was reduced to 30. Each subprefecture was headed by a subprefect, who was also part of the state administration and not an official directly elected by the people.
The territorial division of the prefectures and subprefectures was as follows:
Berat Prefecture comprised the subprefectures of Berat, Fier, Lushnjë, Mallakastër and Skrapar.
Dibër Prefecture comprised the subprefectures of Dibër, Mat and Zerqan.
Durrës Prefecture comprised the subprefectures of Durrës, Kavajë, Krujë and Shijak.
Elbasan Prefecture comprised the subprefectures of Elbasan, Gramsh and Peqin.
Gjirokastër Prefecture comprised the subprefectures of Çamëri, Delvinë, Gjirokastër, Kurvelesh, Libohovë, Përmet and Tepelenë.
Korçë Prefecture comprised the subprefectures of Bilisht, Kolonjë, Korçë, Leskovik and Pogradec.
Kosovë (Kukës) Prefecture comprised the subprefectures of Kosovë-Kukës, Lumë and Tropojë/Malësi e Gjakovës.
Shkodër Prefecture comprised the subprefectures of Dukagjin, Lezhë, Malësi e Madhe, Mirditë, Pukë and Shkodër.
Vlorë Prefecture comprised the subprefectures of Himarë and Vlorë.
Tiranë Prefecture had no subprefecture.
As for municipalities, under the framework of the time, they were established in cities or population centers with a specified number of families and had a more distinct form of organization. Municipalities were responsible for urban matters and local services. The 1927 Law on Municipalities remained in force until 1934, when a new law on municipalities was adopted. The new law created a more comprehensive structure for urban governance. The municipality was treated as a legal entity and had a Municipal Assembly, a Council, a Mayor, an administration and certain financial powers. This law was an important step toward local self-government and fiscal decentralization.
At the city level—that is, in municipalities—there was a more visible element of self-government: the mayor and municipal council were elected and played a role in administering the city. This created a combination of state centralization and local autonomy.
In rural areas, communes were established and operated, encompassing several villages. In 1934, Albania had a total of 160 communes and 2,351 villages.
There was an important distinction between subprefectures and municipalities in the territorial division: a subprefecture was not the same as a municipality. Cities had both a municipality and a subprefecture. However, while the municipality was an elected institution, the subprefecture was a branch of the state administration.
A review of historical and legal sources shows that Zog did not mechanically base the system on the model of a single country. Administrative reform began before the Kingdom was proclaimed, during the period of Zog’s Republic (1925–1928). The Law on Prefectures and Subprefectures of May 23, 1928, was one of the key acts of this phase.
Following the Fundamental Statute of 1928, the administration was built on a centralized European model, with the prefecture as the principal administrative unit; subprefectures as the intermediate level; municipalities for urban centers; and communes for rural areas. To this end, he drew on European administrative models, referring mainly to the continental European administrative tradition, particularly the French and Italian traditions, but built an Albanian system rather than a direct copy of any one country.
To make this branch of the state as functional as possible, Zog invited and engaged certified European expert advisers: Italians, Austrians, French, Dutch and others. They worked for several years with Zog’s administration to select an administrative model from Western countries and adapt it to Albania’s conditions.
Drawing on this experience provided by foreign experts, Albanian jurists and the Albanian administration built the legal framework, using Western practices and legislation as a reference. The chain of work was very clear: King → Minister of Internal Affairs → Albanian jurists at the ministry → drafting commission → consulted foreign experts → Italian/French model → 1928 Law → 1934 Law on Municipalities.
Through this model of local government, citizens at the time felt dignified, valued and supported by the state.
But today, how will citizens feel about the new Territorial Reform, which is claimed to be taking local government from fragmentation to consolidation and from consolidation toward functionality? We have seen no assessment and no documented statistical analysis of what worked well and what worked poorly under the system to date; we have seen no consultation with domestic or foreign experts, other than meetings of mayors from the ruling party, where frustration and resentment are vented more often than analyses are conducted; and we have seen no broad consultation with citizens—the very people who will be directly affected by this reform.
Thus, instead of drawing on the successful national model and experience of local government implemented by the Albanian Kingdom, the new Territorial Reform appears set to continue serving political calculations, distancing citizens even further from governance.
