The political and institutional crisis in Kosovo has deepened after the latest suspension of the constitutive session of the Assembly.
Të lidhura
None found
The possibility of an agreement between political parties has returned to the discussion after the leader of the Vetëvendosje Movement, Albin Kurti, asked for more time to reach a deal with other parties. However, alongside compromise, the scenario of new elections remains open.
Tensions escalated during the last parliamentary session when Alliance deputy Time Kadrijaj threw eggs at Kurti. After the incident, the session chair, Avni Dehari, called for security to intervene.
The continuous political clashes and incidents in the Assembly hall have raised the dilemma of whether the parties will find a way to make the institutions functional or whether Kosovo will enter another electoral cycle.
Vuniqi: The quorum is being used for political battle and not as a constitutional principle
Commenting on developments for “Bota sot,” commentator Agim Vuniqi assesses that the quorum is turning into a tool of conflict between parties.
According to him, the current stances of the opposition entities contradict their previous actions, when they even struck political agreements with the Serb List to create majorities in the Assembly.
Vuniqi says the contradiction of Kosovar politics is clearly seen when today’s behavior is compared with that of the past. Parties that now refuse an agreement to overcome the quorum deadlock in electing the President had previously cooperated politically with the Serb List for co-governance.
He recalls that the same entities, through the Serb List, had secured the quorum and the necessary votes for the establishment of the Specialist Chambers. In that case, legal and constitutional changes were approved in accordance with the legislation in force for the period with which the charges against former KLA leaders are linked, among them Hashim Thaçi and others.
But today, according to Vuniqi, these parties expect the Vetëvendosje Movement to propose the presidential candidate and, at the same time, to secure the votes for his election on its own, without receiving any prior political commitment for support.
The commentator argues that such a request cannot be called a parliamentary compromise, because the entire burden of finding the votes is imposed on the entity that won the elections.
In essence, he says, Vetëvendosje is being asked to present the candidate and then find the formula to elect him alone. Vuniqi considers this a complete transfer of responsibility to the winner, while the opposition continues to preserve the possibility of blocking the process.
He points out that Vetëvendosje has shown signs of being ready for a compromise solution, not excluding the possibility that the post of Assembly Speaker or that of the President be included in a consensual agreement.
Such a formula, according to Vuniqi, would not be unknown to Kosovo’s constitutional practice. He cites the example of the election of Atifete Jahjaga, when the crisis was overcome through political compromise of the parliamentary forces, after the Constitutional Court’s intervention in the presidential election process in the Pacolli case.
Vuniqi admits that the current context does not fully match the circumstances of that time, either legally or politically. Nevertheless, according to him, this precedent shows that in a parliamentary democracy compromise does not represent weakness, but serves as a mechanism for putting institutions into motion.
For the commentator, the issue is not whether compromise should happen, but why it is accepted when it suits the interest of one side and opposed when it aims to overcome the institutional blockade.
If political agreements were deemed acceptable for creating governments, building parliamentary majorities, and approving decisions with constitutional and historical consequences, Vuniqi says it is difficult to argue that they cannot be used merely for electing the President.
In conclusion, he warns that the lack of consistency in political standards risks turning the quorum into a blocking instrument.
According to Vuniqi, political credibility is based on consistency. In its absence, double standards are created, while the quorum, from a constitutional mechanism guaranteeing legitimacy, transforms into a tool for obstructing political competition. For this reason, he raises the question of whether the spirit of the Constitution is being protected or whether constitutional procedure is being put in the service of political war.
Halili: Deepening crisis could lead the country to new elections
Professor Nijazi Halili, in a statement to “Bota sot,” says the developments can no longer be seen simply as clashes over procedures, because the country is facing a serious political crisis.
According to him, the repeated suspensions of the constitutive session show a lack of willingness to compromise. Halili assesses that the parties are using the process of institution-building as a continuation of the electoral race, even though their main task is the functioning of the state.
He also considers the incidents that have occurred inside the Assembly as worrying and unacceptable. When parliamentary discussion is replaced by provocative acts, the professor says, political tension goes beyond the boundaries of democratic competition, weakens the authority of the institution, and increases citizens’ distrust of politics.
Halili believes that space for a political agreement continues to exist, but this requires the parties to give up ultimatums, personal interests, and constant attempts to shift blame to the opponent.
If political leaders fail to produce an institutional compromise, he estimates that holding new elections would not come as a surprise, but would be the direct result of this political failure.
According to Halili, no entity is exempt from responsibility for unblocking the institutions, although the heaviest burden belongs to the parties that secured the highest number of votes from citizens.
Nijazi Halili concluded for “Bota sot” that Kosovo cannot remain hostage to party conflicts and bargaining. He stressed that institutions do not belong to parties, but are mechanisms of the state in the service of citizens. The responsibility for making them functional, according to him, falls on all political subjects and especially on those that received the largest mandate from the citizens.
