The agreement reached between the Vetëvendosje Movement and the Democratic League of Kosovo on the new head of state has been thrown into doubt after six LDK lawmakers publicly refused to support Bekim Sejdiu’s candidacy. Hykmete Bajrami, Avdullah Hoti, Arben Gashi, Armend Zemaj, Kujtim Shala and Janina Ymeri have voiced their opposition, dealing a major blow to the party’s internal cohesion.
Të lidhura
None found
This stance has aggravated existing divisions within the LDK and significantly complicated efforts to secure the numbers needed to elect the president. While LVV holds 53 seats and the LDK 18, Lumir Abdixhiku has said that only 12 lawmakers from his party support Sejdiu. To ensure the process can proceed, the Constitution requires at least 80 lawmakers to be present at the session.
LVV leader Albin Kurti has insisted that the agreement with the LDK remains in force despite this open opposition. He acknowledged that the new circumstances require another round of talks and more careful coordination, as the initial formula no longer secures the 80 votes needed to move the process of electing the head of state forward.
Without a new compromise, there is a real risk that the presidential process will stall and the country will return to a period of institutional instability. For this very reason, the coming hours and days are considered crucial in determining whether the coalition partners can find common ground to salvage the agreement or whether Kosovo will plunge into a new political crisis.
Political analyst Agim Rexhepi, speaking to “Bota sot,” described the conflict between the six lawmakers and the LDK leadership as a serious test of Lumir Abdixhiku’s authority and the party’s stability. He stressed that this is no longer a simple difference of opinion, but a fundamental issue concerning respect for decisions made by the party’s governing bodies.
Rexhepi argues that the challenge facing Abdixhiku goes beyond Bekim Sejdiu’s name. He is facing a decisive test of his leadership. If the Presidency has made a unanimous decision and part of the parliamentary group publicly ignores it, the chairman faces two difficult alternatives: defend the authority of the party’s structures or allow the group of lawmakers to behave as an entity independent of the LDK’s political line. Each path carries its own cost.
According to the analyst, if Abdixhiku opts for tough disciplinary measures, he risks escalating the confrontation and triggering a direct conflict with influential figures within the party. On the other hand, inaction would set a dangerous precedent under which decisions by the Presidency could be challenged without consequences. His warning that “there will be disciplinary action within the LDK” should not be read as empty rhetoric, but as a sign that the clash could take on an institutional dimension. Abdixhiku has even suggested that a lawmaker who refuses to comply with the party’s decision should at least consider relinquishing their mandate.
Regarding the fate of the six lawmakers, Rexhepi does not necessarily foresee their expulsion, as this depends on the party’s internal regulations. However, he lists several possible political consequences: disciplinary measures such as reprimands or warnings, loss of positions in party bodies, political isolation within the parliamentary group and, in the most extreme scenario, removal from party structures. According to him, the biggest issue remains the LDK’s ability to function as a united parliamentary group if this division remains unresolved. The six lawmakers, he stresses, are not an insignificant minority but represent a significant segment.
Rexhepi believes that this situation does not simply revolve around the presidential candidacy. It reflects deeper differences over the LDK’s political direction. One side sees the agreement as an opportunity to overcome the institutional deadlock, while the other interprets the vote as an issue inextricably linked to its stance toward Albin Kurti’s government. Lawmaker Janina Ymeri, for example, justified her opposition as a rejection of what she calls an “extension of Kurti’s rule.” According to the analyst, this shows that the conflict runs far deeper than the selection of one person.
Concluding his analysis, Rexhepi raises the fundamental question: who actually determines the LDK’s political line—the elected Presidency or individual lawmakers? He warns that unless the division is managed responsibly and through dialogue, it has the potential to develop into a full-fledged split, threatening not only a parliamentary battle but also the organizational integrity of one of Kosovo’s historic parties.
Meanwhile, analyst Alma Lama offered an equally critical perspective to “Bota sot.” She described the LDK as a party gripped by a deep leadership crisis that has, in a sense, been held hostage. According to her, for six years the party has been playing Albin Kurti’s political game, beginning with the election of President Vjosa Osmani, by adopting positions that favor its historic opponent.
Lama points out that the opposition of the six lawmakers is not linked solely to the proposed name. She criticizes Abdixhiku’s approach to the negotiations, stressing that he failed to secure Kurti’s acceptance of a consensus LDK candidate who would unite the party. Another major mistake, according to her, was that he entered talks over a specific name without first consulting the parliamentary group and is now trying to impose it on them. This, she adds, makes the handling of the presidential candidate appear unserious, as the candidacy was announced publicly without first securing the votes. Lama concludes that all of this looks like political amateurism and is pushing the LDK toward a deepening crisis.
