By Ben Andoni
One of the most interesting and comprehensible messages from the OSCE–ODIHR was addressed directly to the Albanian public, stating that it must emancipate itself in order to vote democratically.
Unfortunately, at a time when corruption has swept away every narrative of protection and justification of the ruling majority, it is precisely public indifference that is most unsettling. The weak mobilization for protest has revealed an entire national, phlegmatic anthropology when it comes to demanding rights. The opposition needs titanic efforts to bring people into the streets, while the majority merely needs to “remain silent” in order to keep the public asleep amid one scandal after another—scandals that seem unwilling to stop. The phenomenon is broader, and it can be seen in civic engagement aimed at changing everyday life, but also in the attempt to touch contemporaneity. Albania has no contemporaneity in any of its fields of development, even though circumstances may integrate it into the EU within the span of two years.
The argument of “the end of the democratic citizen” goes beyond the Albanian case, where democratic apathy has long been the cause of many of the opposition’s complaints. A European study states that the general population (or at least a considerable part of it) lacks the internalization of values, as well as of all elements related to democratic citizenship, whether active or independent. In real terms, a “true democratic citizen” must be rational, well-informed (this is not lacking among us, but quality remains part of the debate), and must actively engage in politics, with sufficient reason and willingness to improve the community rather than merely pursue private interests. The desire of the Albanian individual and the slogan of December ’90—“Let’s make Albania like the rest of Europe”—could have been the motto of our development, but it gave way to anarchy and profit at any possible cost, at the expense of others. In former Yugoslavia, this concept was forgotten because the confrontation was about survival against the barbarity of Milošević’s machinery, which failed to foresee the disease whose symptoms were already visible by the late 1980s. In Greece, there are signs that citizenship still adheres to democratic canons, perhaps due to a heritage transmitted in their historical DNA.
The concept of the democratic citizen includes active participation and civic engagement (there are few causes, except for the chemical weapons issue in Albania) to disrupt an exhausting status quo such as the current one. A democratic citizen is a critical thinker who, thanks to culture and open-mindedness, can resist propaganda and, in environments where speech is possible, articulate their thoughts clearly. Media professionals, in this context, must place the public interest above conjunctural interests, and be permanent advocates of civil rights. In this latter aspect, the division within our society is fatal—even on the most important issues, such as when basic individual rights are discussed.
A significant contribution to the dismantling of the institution of the “democratic citizen” has been made by the current governance of Edi Rama, and before him by his predecessor, Berisha. Public hearings are conducted merely for appearances, while respect for citizens’ opinions has been reduced to cynical indifference. For days now, Erion Braçe, an MP from the ruling majority, has tried to appeal regarding the waste problem in Unit 5, but the response has been indifference—just as with any other concern. The confrontation of the Albanian democratic individual has now been reduced to monologue, because freedom exists on paper, but there is no listening; accountability of officials is absent, not to say boorish (the communication of Deputy Prime Minister Balluku is a fresh example); transparency has been frighteningly limited, and for this very reason, in Kombinat, municipal officials dared to interfere with residential buildings under the pretext of the earthquake.
But the Albanian challenge goes even further with the opposition to anti-liberal ideas. While Berisha’s Right identifies liberals with Soros, the Left displays them through the cynicism of its governance level, which does not respect the media, civil society, or even judicial confrontation itself. Regarding the rule of law, arguments abound—from Berisha’s curse-filled vocabulary and banalities, along with those of his collaborators, to Rama’s harsh confrontations. “We have begun alarming analyses of worrying signs of judicial brutality. Attempts by magistrates—judges and prosecutors alike—to raise salaries by tearing open the state treasury. Ali and Kadi themselves. I have also read a report on the brutal use of pretrial detention in Albania, which has placed the country at the very bottom,” he recently stated on his podcast. The paradox is that there are truths in this argument if one strips away Berisha’s insults, just as there are realities in what the prime minister says. In this case, it is the Albanian citizen who suffers—and their trust in change. Albania, in its harsh stance toward the citizen, has dismantled democracy. Consider that in just one year, 8,451 citizens filed complaints with the High Inspectorate of Justice against judges of all levels and prosecutors. Consider that after an entire vetting process, which expelled a whole army of justice officials from the system, paradoxically, the Albanian citizen still lacks trust.
The suffering deepens when one recalls that this legacy was laid by the communist regime, which left behind what is known as the concept of “learned helplessness” and a lack of civic instruments for complaint. Thus, even today, citizens continue not to trust their governments, while politics is seen as being captured by a class that creates mechanisms to be governed by its own choices. In the Albanian case, political polarization remains a concern, almost similar to that in the Western Balkans, making rational and informed debate difficult—debate that could pave the way for a healthy democracy. This environment has fostered a polarity without which we seem unable to live “normally.” But the greatest blow is dealt to the vote itself, as the public does not feel represented due to a system that usually sends individuals far below the average public level into parliament. Moreover, when one does not believe that their vote brings change, why should a citizen engage at all? Recently, one of the greatest democratic apathies has been linked precisely to this fact.
Perhaps finally, but most importantly, the democratic citizen has been killed by the economy and deep inequality, as well as privileges granted to those close to power. The ordinary Albanian sees this reality every day—bitter and brutal alike.
Turning back to history: the concept of the democratic citizen has been upheld by a series of great individuals from antiquity to the philosophers of the Enlightenment. Solon (6th century BC) in Attica laid the groundwork for citizens to participate in the Ekklesia. Then came Cleisthenes, the “father of Athenian democracy,” and Pericles, the most distinguished Athenian of the 5th century BC, who demanded that even the poorest citizens hold public office. This continued into modern times with John Locke (17th century), who argued that all people are created equal, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (18th century), who in The Social Contract articulated the principle of popular sovereignty and defined the “citizen” as a member of a collective body—followed by the Declaration of the Rights of Man.
These historical developments—from the model of direct participation in ancient Athens to the theories of universal rights of the Enlightenment—together shaped the concept of the modern democratic citizen. That very concept, in the age of cybernetics and artificial intelligence, is being struck from all sides, while in Albania and in many Eastern countries, the end has arrived… for the concept of the “democratic citizen.” The great social, cultural, economic, and political crisis reveals this repeatedly in Albania. Is there still hope?
Václav Havel, the philosopher of Eastern democracies, offered a concept for the survival of the democratic citizen:
“Without free citizens who respect themselves and are autonomous, there can be no free and independent nations. Without inner peace—that is, peace among citizens and between citizens and the state—there can be no guarantee of external peace.”
And OSCE–ODIHR continues, in its ongoing and frozen reports… on democracy. (Homo Albanicus)