Territorial Reform Under Fire, Arben Malaj Accuses Rama of Weakening Local Democracy and Centralizing Power

Arben Malaj, a former finance minister, has sharply criticized Prime Minister Edi Rama and the way the Socialist government carried out the territorial reform.

In a television interview, the former Socialist minister said that instead of empowering local government, the reform has weakened local democracy because it was designed around electoral interests.

Malaj argued that the transfer of powers to the central government has undermined the autonomy of municipalities and directly violated the European principle of subsidiarity.

According to him, the current system of government is deeply centralized, while the executive has disregarded key guidance from international partners.

He said the government has failed to take into account European Union recommendations on decentralization, investment and transparency, turning local government into an appendage of the central executive.

Interview:

Malaj: In our analyses as researchers, we have highlighted the democratic deficit linked to the removal of the opportunity to directly elect leaders and influence important decisions concerning community development. The number of municipalities is being reduced further and further, while the concept of the city as a kind of intermediate unit has been created, whose leader will be a deputy mayor, as the Socialist Party’s great reformer puts it. But based on all experience and definitions, the deputy mayor is selected by the mayor and does not need to receive the council’s approval. This means that he will be an employee of the mayor, without the authority that comes from the votes of the residents of the area he will govern. This is the first and most important element.

Malaj: Second, European local democracy is based on the principle of subsidiarity. In other words, matters concerning an area should be the responsibility of the leader elected by its own residents. I do not use the term “administrative unit” because it represents nothing more than bureaucracy. The concepts of commune and city, meanwhile, should be founded on local democracy, which is regarded as the lifeblood of local democracy.

Malaj: If a unit, commune or city, for various reasons, fails to fulfill its obligations to residents, the central government then intervenes immediately. When the situation deteriorates further, the European Union becomes involved. I would like to draw attention to the waste crisis in Naples.

Malaj: The Municipality of Naples was unable to manage the situation, so Berlusconi’s government intervened and assistance was requested from the European Union. These issues have not been clarified because attention has been focused solely on the figures. Nevertheless, territorial organization affects essential elements such as democracy, self-government, decentralization and financial autonomy.

Malaj: There is not a single element in this reform that expands local democracy, strengthens participatory governance or increases financial autonomy, among many other aspects. Financial autonomy does not increase simply by merging with a large city while losing the entire concept of democratic governance and having revenue collected by one municipality and then transferred to a commune that, in this particular case… I have great confidence in commune mayors, regardless of whether they belong to the Socialist Party or other parties. I saw the case of the Municipality of Patos, which had a coefficient…

Question: Of its… how should I put it, its good governance.

Malaj: Yes, 71.4%, while all the others had lower figures. At this point, I think we are dealing with what Rama and Balla have repeatedly said: next time, we will win all 61 municipalities. Now this becomes easier because the number drops to 46. In essence, therefore, the reform is anti-democratic. Figures have been used, while statistics have been misused solely to conceal its true essence.

Question: In your view, then, is this division an electoral calculation?

Malaj: Entirely. I stated this a long time ago, at the very start of the reform. The question I raised was whether this reform kills or strengthens local democracy. The conclusion is that it kills it rather than empowering it.

Question: But how much do we really want this local democracy, Mr. Malaj? I have the impression that Albania’s central government, particularly under Mr. Rama’s leadership since 2013, has shown no willingness to delegate powers. Perhaps in principle it accepts what the EU is asking for, but it remains to be seen whether the will to do so exists…

Malaj: The will is entirely absent, and you were right to link the issue to the European Union. We need to view the problem from a broader perspective and not merely as a debate over the number of municipalities. Was it not made clear in February that there were many positive assessments of the Albanian government that did not, in fact, hold up? Did the European institutions not react to the first report, and did it not take two or three months to approve the second report, which contained strict obligations? Was the cancellation of strategic investors not requested?

Malaj: Rama continues to misuse this process, even granting oil concessions that during this period will impose a heavy burden of several hundred million euros on Albanians. Was a review of the 2014 amendments concerning protected areas not requested? What did Rama do? He did the opposite. Was he not asked, if he aligns himself with America and the European Union, to create a competitive environment for foreign direct investment? We do everything through royal, prime-ministerial decrees.

Malaj: He selects the strategic investor himself, then asks the investor to complete the documents and finally presents it to Albania. What kind of procedure is that? How will Rama now answer for the glorious grandeur of the Durrës project, with which he filled every television channel, where he spoke more than the strategic investor? Who will now tell him that he was wrong? What will happen to those hundreds of thousands who made advance payments? Because the events of 1997 are repeating themselves, when, as soon as it becomes clear that those holding Albanians’ money are without equal, Albanians go even further…