The deadline for constituting the Assembly of Kosovo expires today, but even after a third round of talks, the leader of the Vetëvendosje Movement, Albin Kurti, and the leader of the Democratic League of Kosovo, Lumir Abdixhiku, have failed to reach a political agreement.
Të lidhura
None found
At the end of the meeting, acting Prime Minister Albin Kurti stressed the need for democratic balance and respect for the will expressed by citizens in the June 7 vote. He noted that there is a deep gap between the election result and the current demands, describing this as the main obstacle that has prevented an agreement so far. Nevertheless, Kurti added that hope should not be lost and that he remains optimistic that a solution can be found.
Referring to the previous occasion when Vjosa Osmani was elected president, Kurti recalled that the race had begun on the premise that the first candidate would become prime minister and the second president. Now, according to him, a broadly supported, nonpartisan president is needed. He suggested a consensus candidate with integrity and principles but declined to mention any specific name to avoid speculation. Kurti said he was doing everything possible to avert the emerging crisis.
Meanwhile, LDK leader Lumir Abdixhiku stated clearly after the meeting that his party is seeking the right to nominate the president as part of a coalition with LVV. He described the December offer, which included only the post of deputy prime minister and several ministries, as insufficient and undignified. According to Abdixhiku, if LVV wants to cooperate with LDK, the latter must be properly represented. While acknowledging that the post of prime minister belongs to LVV under the Constitution, he argued that the only way to ensure genuine representation is by nominating the president, who would then become the president of all Kosovo, rather than this being merely an empty proposal.
As the country waits to learn whether the session to constitute the Assembly will be held tonight, it is worth recalling that Prime Minister Kurti has held meetings only with LDK. This is because the Democratic Party of Kosovo had announced that it would remain in opposition, while the Alliance for the Future of Kosovo had set conditions and refused any meeting with Kurti.
Political analyst Lirim Gashi, speaking to “Bota sot,” commented on the positions of the two parties. He acknowledged that they have the right to hold programmatic differences with LVV but noted that democracy is not merely an electoral contest. According to him, refusing dialogue does not constitute a sound political solution.
Gashi drew a fundamental distinction between the opposition’s right not to join a coalition and its political obligation to communicate when the functioning of the state is at risk. He argued that Kosovo is not facing an ordinary party-political issue, but an institutional deadlock and an immediate need to establish functioning institutions and elect the president. For this reason, he views the refusal of dialogue as poor political conduct, regardless of who engages in it. According to him, it would be more responsible for all parties to sit down together without prejudging the outcome of the talks.
He stressed that agreeing to sit at the table does not mean endorsing an opponent’s platform, but rather recognizing that the state comes before the party. Such a step would even be in the opposition’s interest, as it could attend the meeting to state its objections clearly while also discussing areas of agreement. Gashi emphasized that when one side refuses communication on the grounds of disagreement, political conflict is created; when it accepts dialogue for the sake of the state, that is institutional democracy. He noted that responsibility does not rest solely with PDK and AAK; LVV must also be ready for a genuine compromise, not merely formal consultations. A serious agreement requires each side to give something up, and the same demand must be made of LVV: it should not merely seek support but offer the compromise that would make such support possible.
Asked whether the country would head to new elections because of the failure to form institutions and the lack of consensus on the president, and whether the election result would change significantly, Gashi replied that elections could produce changes, but that did not mean the result would be identical.
He avoided making a categorical prediction but stressed that elections are not a mechanically repeated opinion poll. Looking at the June 7 result, in which LVV convincingly won 53 seats, PDK 22, LDK 18 and AAK 7, he sees no strong reason to expect a dramatic reversal in the balance of power. However, he warned that new elections would take place in a completely different atmosphere, with citizens now aware of what happens when parties fail to build a compromise. Therefore, the main question for each party would no longer be merely how many votes it receives, but also what it will do with those votes. If citizens experience the same deadlock after the elections, they may punish not only the losing parties but also the way those parties used their mandate. Accordingly, Gashi expects more of an internal shift in votes than an inevitable upheaval of the political system.
Describing new elections as a gamble for all sides, Gashi said that some parties could gain or lose points, but a radical change would be more difficult to predict without a major political development. There is also a paradox: if the opposition believes elections would significantly improve its position, it should bear in mind that they could strengthen LVV even further. Conversely, if LVV believes it can easily win an absolute majority, there is no guarantee. For him, the biggest gamble is not who will win more seats, but whether Kosovo will emerge from the elections with functioning institutions or enter a new cycle of deadlock. Therefore, he would prefer the parties to use every last opportunity to reach an agreement before sending the country back to the polls. He concluded that elections are the democratic instrument for resolving political disagreements, but they should not become a means of avoiding political compromise, because citizens vote for someone to assume responsibility for governing the country.
