Albanian MP in the Serbian Parliament Shaip Kamberi has reacted to Aleksandar Vučić’s critical statements about the unification of Albanian political entities on a joint parliamentary list.
Të lidhura
None found
According to Kamberi, Vučić’s concern is not simply related to the number of seats the Albanian coalition could secure, but to the political and diplomatic role that such representation could assume.
He argues that a united Albanian list could raise in Parliament the issues of discrimination, the deactivation of addresses and the underrepresentation of Albanians in the Preševo Valley, as well as demand accountability for the failure to implement signed agreements.
Kamberi says that presenting the Albanian list as a threat to the state is intended to divert attention from minority rights and shift the debate toward political loyalty.
In recent days, the joint Albanian parliamentary list has become the target of attacks by the former Serbian president. But according to Kamberi, Vučić’s statements should be analyzed beyond the number of MPs the coalition could win.
He emphasizes that the main issue is not only how many Albanian representatives will enter Parliament, but what they will represent politically and what influence they will be able to exert.
Since the list has been certified by the Republic Electoral Commission in accordance with legal procedures, Kamberi assesses that Vučić’s labeling of it as “an enemy” is not simply criticism of a political opponent.
According to him, this is an attempt to shift the debate from the electoral contest to loyalty to the state, portraying the political opponent as a danger to the country.
Kamberi stresses that when a former president and candidate for prime minister calls an electoral list representing a national minority an enemy, the discussion moves away from programs, rights and results and focuses on loyalty to him and the ruling party.
He assesses that this narrative is intended to divide the Albanian list, exert pressure on the parties and candidates that may cooperate with it, and create the impression that any criticism of the government constitutes action against Serbia’s interests.
According to Kamberi, this is a familiar tactic of political polarization.
In his latest statements ahead of the elections, Vučić also mentioned foreign services and the alleged support of opponents by external actors.
Kamberi says that, in this context, an Albanian list seeking greater representation, equality and political cooperation with representatives from Kosovo is being used to reinforce the narrative that Serbia is facing pressure from abroad.
He describes this approach as a narrative using hate-filled and warmongering language, intended to preserve old stereotypes of Albanians as “age-old enemies.”
According to him, a government accustomed to negotiating with minority representatives through political dependency may find it more difficult to confront united, critical and independent Albanian representation than a larger number of MPs willing to accommodate themselves to those in power.
Kamberi emphasizes that one, two, three or more MPs may have limited influence over the passage of laws, but their influence may be much greater in three areas.
In Parliament, they can raise issues that the government would prefer not to include in the debate, including the deactivation of addresses, discrimination and underrepresentation.
On the international stage, they can document cases of discrimination and submit them to European institutions, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, NATO, the QUINT, Congress and the U.S. Department of State.
Meanwhile, in Serbia’s polarized political debate, such representation could demonstrate that there is an Albanian voice that does not identify with government policies.
For this reason, Kamberi says that the influence of an MP should not be measured only by the votes they have in Parliament, but also by their ability to turn an internal problem into an issue of institutional and international accountability.
According to him, Vučić wants citizens to see his politics as the only legitimate representation of the interests of the Serbian state.
In such a climate, the opponent is not portrayed as an actor with an alternative program, but as someone alleged to be acting against the country.
Kamberi assesses that this discourse is intended to change the main question: instead of discussing why the problems of Albanians are not being resolved, the debate is directed toward why they are demanding their rights and whom they are allegedly serving.
Thus, according to him, the minority is placed in the position of the accused, while attention is diverted from the state’s obligations, particularly the four agreements signed in 2001, 2009, 2013 and 2022, which Serbia is not respecting.
Kamberi emphasizes that this attempt should not automatically be understood as a sign that Vučić fears losing power because of two or three Albanian MPs.
He sees it more as an attempt to predetermine the political meaning of the increased Albanian presence in Parliament.
According to Kamberi, the demand for the implementation of laws, institutional equality and state accountability confronts Vučić with arguments concerning state-organized discrimination.
If Albanians are presented as enemies, he is attempting to shift the debate onto terrain where nationalism and national security replace rights and political accountability.
A list that could be easily defeated numerically may be much more difficult to neutralize politically and diplomatically if it maintains its independence, discipline and credibility.
For this reason, Kamberi says that Vučić declares he “will not allow” the internationalization of the issue of Albanians in the Preševo Valley.
