Përparim Rama’s ambition to lead the LDK – analysts warn of a deepening crisis and call for sweeping reform

After winning a second consecutive term in the capital and returning the Democratic League of Kosovo to Pristina after 12 years, Mayor Përparim Rama has openly expressed his intention to take over the leadership of the party.

His statements about a possible candidacy have been repeated particularly since the formation of Kurti 4 Government and the election of the new president, while political observers say they should be taken seriously but stress that he would not be able to resolve the LDK’s crisis. In their view, this is more a personal ambition, and a possible victory for Rama in the internal race could place the party at even greater risk.

In a statement to the newspaper “Bota sot,” opinionist Gani Mehmeti says Rama’s candidacy would not be a solution to the crisis but could instead weaken the LDK further. He also disagrees with the claim that the LDK is the leading force in Pristina, emphasizing that Rama’s victory was also influenced by other parties.

According to Mehmeti, Rama may be seeking other important political posts because he has major ambitions, but that does not mean he can achieve them. His desire to lead the LDK should be viewed in this context: it may be serious for him, but not necessarily for the party’s membership and structures. Mehmeti believes that Rama’s candidacy would remain merely a desire without turning into an electoral choice, and that the LDK has already declined considerably in recent years. If Rama were to take the helm, the risk that the party would weaken even further and face serious difficulties in the next elections, including failing to cross the electoral threshold, would be real. He therefore does not see Rama as the solution the LDK needs at this moment.

Mehmeti also questions the results of Rama’s governance in the capital and his ability to unite the party’s structures. He adds that Rama can say whatever he wants about the LDK and its position in Pristina, but that does not mean his claims are entirely valid, since he was elected mayor with the help of other parties and not solely with LDK votes. In his view, the LDK has lost its political way for years and is no longer the party it should have been, a situation he dates back to the period when Isa Mustafa took over its leadership. Mehmeti does not see Rama as a bearer of the Rugovist spirit, which should be one of the pillars of the party’s identity, and warns that his candidacy would lead to new clashes because he lacks the necessary support to unite the membership. The LDK, he concludes, needs a chairman who unites and listens, not a race that deepens its existing divisions.

Political analyst Eduard Gashi tells “Bota sot” that Përparim Rama’s ambition should be taken seriously because he has already publicly linked his name to the possibility of leading the LDK, and this is no longer merely a matter of media speculation. He recalls that Rama has said he believes he will run, although he has not yet made a final decision, and that he expressed his willingness to lead the party to Lumir Abdixhiku, Lutfi Haziri and Avdullah Hoti, showing that this ambition is part of a political discussion that began earlier. However, Gashi distinguishes between the seriousness of the ambition and the possibility of realizing it: seeking the chairmanship is one thing, while demonstrating a vision, a team, legitimacy and the courage to reform the party is quite another. According to him, Rama must clarify what changes he intends to pursue, what kind of team he would build and how he would win the support of the membership. Only if his willingness is transformed into a concrete program can it be considered a genuine political alternative rather than simply an individual ambition.

As for the result in Pristina, Gashi calls it a strong political argument in Rama’s favor and a basis for taking him seriously in the debate over the LDK’s future. However, the party’s return as the leading force in the capital after twelve years cannot be turned into an automatic mandate to lead the party at the central level, because the result was shaped by the candidate, party organization, grassroots work, political circumstances and the citizens’ decision to support an alternative. He stresses that it would be wrong to attribute all the credit to one person, since Pristina has its own electoral and political specifics, while Kosovo consists of municipalities with different social and economic realities. Winning in the capital is not the same as convincing voters across the country, and a party leader must prove that they can build trust beyond their local base. Gashi sees Rama’s result as political capital that deserves consideration, but not as a certificate guaranteeing him the leadership of the LDK in advance.

Gashi believes Rama could bring a new spirit, but this does not depend solely on his name or on replacing the current chairman. The LDK, he says, does not simply need a generational change but a change in political culture and in the way the organization operates. A party can change its chairmen, deputy chairmen and spokespeople while remaining unchanged in the way it makes decisions, treats internal opponents and selects people for public responsibilities. If Rama seeks to become a symbol of a new beginning, he must present a clear reform program, open the party to professionals and younger generations, establish meritocracy and guarantee genuine democracy within its structures. It is equally important for the LDK to clearly define its political identity and show citizens how, in concrete terms, it differs from other parties. History can provide a foundation, but it cannot replace a political program. Rama’s challenge, therefore, would be to demonstrate that he is not seeking merely to replace one name with another, but to introduce a new way of operating, with mechanisms that make the party more open, democratic and accountable to citizens.

Regarding a possible race for chairman, Gashi says Rama’s candidacy could lead to clashes because the contest for party leadership is also linked to existing relations of influence and power. However, he says it is not right to automatically view every new candidacy as a source of conflict, since a clash of ideas is part of democracy. The problem begins when competition turns into an effort to eliminate an opponent. If Rama decides to run, he must explain what kind of team he would bring, how he would treat the existing structure and which mistakes of the previous leadership he intends to correct. His potential opponents, too, must understand that a party cannot seek citizens’ trust if competition within it is treated as a threat. The greatest risk for the LDK, he stresses, is not that two or more candidates will compete for the chairmanship, but that the winner will regard the party as their own property, while the losers will see the result as a reason to leave, sabotage the new leadership or wait for revenge. To avoid this, a transparent process is needed, with equal criteria, open programmatic debate and guarantees that the membership is not used merely to legitimize decisions made in advance. Genuine unity, he concludes, is not built by suppressing disagreement, but by creating rules that make disagreement constructive. A well-managed race could reawaken the membership and strengthen the organization, while an uncontrolled confrontation could further weaken the LDK and convince citizens that the party is more interested in its own positions than in their problems.

Gashi emphasizes that Rama must bear in mind that his responsibility toward Pristina remains important regardless of his ambitions to lead the party. If he decides to run and seeks to hold both positions, he must explain how he would divide his time, organize his responsibilities and ensure that the governance of the capital is not harmed by his party engagement. He must also demonstrate that his experience in Pristina can serve as the basis for a broader political offer. A mayor, Gashi says, is judged by urban projects, public services and city management, but the leader of a national party must also provide answers on the economy, education, healthcare, justice and the country’s international orientation. This requires a competent team, an implementable program and the ability to build trust in all municipalities. Success in Pristina is an important starting point, but not the end of the political test. Rama must show that he can turn local support into a national project that does not depend solely on his personal profile.

In conclusion, Gashi stresses that Rama should have the opportunity to compete if he officially decides to run, while the LDK should have the courage to assess him on the basis of his program, team and ability to reform the party. However, responsibility for the LDK’s future cannot be placed on one person alone. The party, he says, will not emerge from its crisis simply by changing its chairman, but by changing the way it chooses its leadership, treats its members, selects people for public responsibilities and responds to citizens. New leadership must create mechanisms that make the organization stronger than the individuals who lead it, so that its future does not depend on waiting for a figure who promises to save it. If Rama’s candidacy becomes a reform project and the race is conducted democratically, he could contribute to the LDK’s revival. If everything is reduced to a contest for the chairmanship without changing the political culture and internal organization, hopes for a new beginning risk remaining unfulfilled. Political parties, Gashi concludes, do not necessarily lose their future only when they lose elections; they put it at risk when they are no longer able to understand the reasons for their defeats and change in line with citizens’ expectations. The LDK’s real challenge is not only who will lead it, but whether it will manage to build a new way of doing politics based on greater meritocracy, accountability and public credibility.