PasqyrAlbania” by Rama: a new name for an old promise that does not solve governance problems

After months of daily protests, known as the “Flamingo Revolution,” Prime Minister Edi Rama has introduced the “PasqyrAlbania” platform as a new channel of communication with citizens. Experts, however, see it as a repackaging of an earlier idea that does not address the core of the country’s governance problems.

Rama made the announcement on August 24, during a meeting in Pogradec with the government cabinet and the leaders of the Socialist Party. He declared that every request or concern submitted through the platform would be monitored in real time and receive a response.

“People’s requests and complaints cannot be like the bottles containing messages of farewell that people threw from ships when they were sinking in the ocean,” the prime minister said.

However, “PasqyrAlbania” is not seen as a genuine innovation, but rather as a new name for a promise made earlier.

Since the end of 2021, the government has been operating the “The Albania We Want” platform, a state mechanism based on the law on co-governance.

The political promises and legal framework of that time provided for precisely this kind of direct, real-time communication between citizens and institutions. According to them, citizens would receive answers to their problems and would also be able to influence the drafting of government policies.

Asked what had not worked with the “The Albania We Want” platform and what the new initiative aimed to change, the Prime Minister’s Press Office said that “PasqyrAlbania” would be “an entirely new experience.” According to the office, the platform would also include “The Albania We Want” and e-Albania.

“But at the same time, they themselves will also be presented in a new version, in which Artificial Intelligence will play a role that has been missing until now,” the Prime Minister’s Press Office said.

Political analysts believe that Rama interprets governance problems primarily as communication difficulties. According to them, the proposed way of overcoming those problems involves bypassing institutions and concentrating the citizen–power relationship around the prime minister.

Journalist Lutfi Dervishi described “PasqyrAlbania” more as a continuation of an existing idea than as a new concept of governance, placing it in the context of the previous platform and the law on co-governance.

“In essence, it looks more like a new version of an old idea than a new philosophy of governance,” Dervishi said.

He acknowledged that the new platform could be more advanced technologically, but warned that “technological innovation must not be confused with institutional responsibility.”

“In an administration that functions normally, citizens should not need a special mechanism to force the administration to do what it is supposed to do,” the journalist added.

PR operation for governance problems

During Edi Rama’s 13 years in power, public communication and daily propaganda about the government’s achievements have been among the defining characteristics of his rule.

Major public investment projects were presented in the government’s virtual world through 3D images, even before construction began on the ground. Later, some of them became linked to corruption scandals, with senior officials investigated or tried for corruption.

After three months of continuous civic protests, known as the “Flamingo Revolution,” Rama has spent weeks talking about reshaping the relationship between the government and citizens. Initially, he mentioned a document called “Besa,” and later introduced the “PasqyrAlbania” platform.

But it remains debatable whether deep-seated governance problems can be solved solely by improving communication.

Ermal Hasimja, a lecturer in Political Science, said the prime minister was trying to use the “communication improvement operation” to justify the consequences of his governance.

“The problem is that governance serves a small group of people, not everyone. The minority gets the fruits, while the majority gets ‘communication,’” Hasimja stressed.

Eduart Gjokutaj, head of the ALTAX organization, which focuses on transparency and sustainable development policies, likewise argues that a better communication channel is not enough to overcome the crisis of trust.

“It is connected to keeping promises, transparency in decision-making, respect for institutions, control over power, and accountability for results. If citizens are heard but institutions are not held responsible for what they promise and do, the platform risks becoming an instrument for managing discontent rather than a governance reform,” Gjokutaj said.

According to him, even if the “PasqyrAlbania” initiative proves successful, it does not in itself constitute “a new model of governance.”

“Otherwise, we have a new instrument for a familiar mechanism,” Gjokutaj underlined.

Dervishi notes that this mechanism also creates a paradox: the government may take credit for correcting a problem it created itself or failed to resolve through its own structures.

“After 13 years in power, the question is no longer simply how well the government communicates with citizens, but why intervention from above should be necessary to obtain a normal response from institutions and the administration,” he said.

According to the journalist, the same question applies to “PasqyrAlbania,” which Rama has presented as a new way to approach institutions with requests or concerns and to monitor in real time how they are handled, as well as who is responsible for resolving them.

Rama presents himself as “the Solution”

At the Pogradec event, the prime minister also gave a concrete example of how he understands communication with citizens. He showed a viral video from a meeting with an elderly man in a village in Pogradec.

The elderly man, who had waited for hours to meet Rama, asked him to build a four-kilometer road in the village where he lived, without first contacting the relevant institutions.

For Dervishi, the episode reflects the centralized communication model that the prime minister has built and continues to strengthen.

“He bypasses the intermediaries: the administration, institutions, the media, the opposition, and often even the ministers themselves. And he presents himself as ‘the Solution.’ In the end, a relationship is created in which a citizen with a problem no longer confronts ‘the state,’ but turns to the center of power for a solution,” Dervishi said.

According to him, the situation creates a contradiction, because “centralization is presented as a remedy for the malfunctioning of an already highly centralized administration.”

Dervishi added that the new communication initiatives do not necessarily address the causes of the discontent that emerged during the protests. On the contrary, they may shift attention from governance problems to the direct connection between citizens and the prime minister.

He considers this “the main risk,” because “in a democracy, the relationship should be citizen–institution, not citizen–prime minister.”

Gjokutaj warns of the same risk if the platform creates the impression that problems are solved through the intervention of the prime minister or political leaders rather than through the normal functioning of institutions.

“This would further strengthen the personal citizen–power relationship, instead of the citizen–state relationship,” he said.

“Governance cannot be built on the idea that every citizen’s problem must be solved through the intervention of the central government. In a functioning state, citizens should not have to seek a favor or political intervention to receive a service guaranteed to them by law. Responsibility should lie with the institution, not the leader,” Gjokutaj concluded.