Risk of new elections in Kosovo, analysts warn of consequences: LDK faces the greatest loss

On Monday morning, it was announced that the Vetëvendosje Movement and the Democratic League of Kosovo had reached an agreement to nominate Professor Dr. Bekim Sejdiu as a candidate for president. According to the LDK, the party itself had proposed his name, and it had been accepted by the Vetëvendosje Movement. However, reports emerged that afternoon that six LDK MPs would not support the agreement.

LDK leader Lumir Abdixhiku announced that Avdullah Hoti, Kujtim Shala, Hykmete Bajrami, Arben Gashi, Armend Zemaj and Janina Ymeri had expressed their opposition to the agreement. On Tuesday, Abdixhiku again addressed the six MPs’ refusal, warning that their position would lead to new elections and that the LDK would suffer the greatest damage.

He clarified that no governing agreement with LVV had been rejected the previous day because no such agreement existed. The LDK had chosen to remain in opposition, and all its MPs had agreed with that position. Abdixhiku stressed that what had actually been rejected was the solution to the issue of the presidency and the candidate proposed by the LDK, which, according to him, also determined the country’s fate, namely early elections. He drew a parallel with the situation in 2020, when, according to him, political blindness had reduced the LDK to 12% of the vote, warning that the latest action by the six MPs represented similar damage to the party. Abdixhiku said he could not understand how these MPs could feel fulfilled by praise from those who had opposed the LDK their entire lives. Finally, he reiterated that new elections had not been on the LDK’s agenda, but had for months been a clear objective of other political groups, which were now successfully exerting influence within the party’s own ranks.

Analyst Milazim Maraj described the MPs’ refusal as a mistake. According to him, the reasons they gave did not justify such a serious and damaging action for Kosovo. He described the situation as painful and degrading, particularly in terms of international perceptions and the country’s allies. Maraj argued that national unity should not fall victim to grudges, revenge or narrow party interests. He added that the damage was not limited to the domestic sphere but also extended internationally, comparing the situation to the whims of the LVV leader in expressing resentment toward the former president. However, Maraj stressed that responsibility did not rest solely with the six MPs. He noted that the party leader had won the confidence of the majority in the General Council and that everyone had pledged to respect that decision, but they were now offering reasons that were insufficient to take the country to new elections, which would not guarantee success without an agreement.

Maraj stressed that the LDK should convene its party bodies and reconsider the situation. He recalled that the LDK had made compromises even during the most difficult times, when its founders, activists and supporters had been threatened, wounded and killed, and that it had done so in the national interest. According to Maraj, Chairman Abdixhiku had also made mistakes because, before publicly announcing the specific name of the presidential candidate, he should have consulted the LDK parliamentary group and held a debate on the decision that 12 other MPs were prepared to accept. He noted that the objections to the candidate were not related to his character, diplomatic training, intellectual level or experience, but were of a much lower nature, focusing on the fact that he had been part of the Constitutional Court panel when it voted against the Hoti government. Maraj described this as revenge and questioned what purpose it served for the country’s interests. Finally, he warned that the LDK would lose even more votes in the event of new elections and stressed that only actions serving Kosovo’s and the national interest could justify this party, which had founded the state.

Meanwhile, another political analyst, Adnan Qaka, said Kosovo was at risk of new elections because of a lack of political will to constitute its institutions. He said the agreement reached between the Vetëvendosje Movement and the LDK on electing the president should move forward and that political leaders should reflect in order to secure the necessary quorum. According to Qaka, the PDK and AAK were seeking new elections, while LVV and the LDK leader, together with 11 other MPs, supported constituting the institutions.

Qaka addressed the agreement between Albin Kurti and Lumir Abdixhiku, saying it should be implemented to avoid early elections. He stressed that Bekim Sejdiu’s candidacy was not being opposed because of who he was, but because it was part of the political agreement between LVV and the LDK. According to him, the PDK and AAK did not object to the individual but refused to vote for him solely to prevent Kurti from remaining in power, thereby seeking new elections. He also mentioned Abdixhiku’s position, noting that he had said he would be in the Assembly chamber on voting day together with 11 other MPs, while six LDK MPs had decided not to support the agreement.

Qaka described Abdixhiku’s position as institutional and statesmanlike and said the agreement should move forward to spare the country another electoral process, which would be extremely damaging and would bring the same problems. He also referred to Abdixhiku’s statements about the influence of certain public figures on LDK MPs, mentioning Baton Haxhiu and Berat Buzhala, who, according to him, were influencing radical positions within the party. Abdixhiku had said that going to elections was not the LDK’s agenda but that of these individuals, and that the problem would remain the same after the elections.

Qaka added that Abdixhiku had criticized the six MPs who opposed the agreement, claiming they were working against the interests of the party and the country. He linked Richard Grenell’s statement in support of the MPs to an attempt by Serbia to keep Kosovo in a political crisis. According to Qaka, there was extensive evidence showing Grenell to be a pro-Serbian lobbyist with ties to Russians. He mentioned his designation as persona non grata by Germany during his tenure as a diplomat, Der Spiegel reports about his ties to the far-right AfD party, which was financed with money of Russian origin, and a Washington Post investigation revealing that Grenell had been paid by a Hungarian foundation linked to Kremlin interests. Qaka also recalled that one month and one day after Serbia’s attack in northern Kosovo, President Aleksandar Vučić had decorated Grenell with the “Order of the Serbian Flag,” describing him as a true friend of Serbia.

Regarding the possibility of constituting the institutions, Qaka said the chances were slim and that the processes would drag on until new elections, which he expected to be held in December. He warned that if the LDK entered the elections divided, it would suffer greatly, and said Abdixhiku had saved the party from an even steeper decline through his willingness to establish the institutions and avoid elections. However, Qaka attributed much of the responsibility for the LDK’s poor results in the last three elections to several senior party members, particularly Kujtim Shala, whom he described as one of the chief architects of a destructive role within the party that was harmful to the national interest.

In a lengthy argument, Qaka claimed that the process of constituting the Assembly had exceeded the constitutional deadline. He referred to Article 66, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, under which the Assembly must be constituted within 30 days of the official announcement of the results. Counting from the certification of the results by the CEC on July 8, 2026, he argued that the 30-day deadline had expired on August 7, 2026, at 24:00. Qaka challenged the interpretation that merely convening the session or opening the doors of the Assembly within that deadline was sufficient, stressing that the phrase “the session is held” meant that all the work of that session had to be carried out and fully completed, including the election of the Speaker and Deputy Speakers. He also cited a paragraph from a Constitutional Court judgment that, according to him, clarified that the 30-day deadline was a binding deadline by which the Assembly had to be fully constituted, rather than merely a deadline for attempting to constitute it. Therefore, any action taken after August 7 constituted a violation of the Constitution. Qaka added that referring the matter to the Constitutional Court would not change the fact that the deadline had passed and that a new procedure would not make a session held after the binding deadline constitutional.