The Democratic Party seems to have decided to use two standards for two reforms that require cooperation between the majority and the opposition. While on the Territorial Reform the Democrats have chosen to boycott, accusing the Socialists of breaking the agreement and the consensual process, on the Electoral Reform the same majority does not constitute an obstacle to sitting at the discussion table.
The leader of the Democratic Party, Sali Berisha, has come out to justify the opposition's position on the Electoral Reform Commission, setting conditions for the Socialist Party and demanding respect for the rules of co-decision-making. But this position seems to lack an important element: the experience of the other commission, the Territorial Reform Commission, where cooperation with the Socialists ended in clashes and boycotts.
So, for Territorial Reform, the DP considers cooperation with the Socialists impossible, while for Electoral Reform it chooses to sit opposite them, in the hope that this time the majority will respect the rules of the game.
Berisha has accused the Socialist co-chair of the Electoral Reform Commission, Damian Gjiknuri, of attempting to unilaterally set the agenda, bypassing the opposition representative.
"Contrary to the law, the Parliament's decision on the Electoral Reform Commission has unilaterally determined the agenda to blow up the commission. Decision-making in the commission is by veto. Rama's tool, Damian Gjiknuri, without the vote of the other co-chair, seeks to approve the agenda, which our side does not accept since points have been set for the Territorial Reform," Berisha declared.
So, according to Berisha himself, the Socialists are attempting to impose their agenda and violate the principle of consensus decision-making. However, unlike the case of Territorial Reform, this accusation has not been accompanied by a decision to leave the Electoral Reform table.
Berisha has even gone further, defining the opposition's red lines for changes to the Electoral Code. He has demanded fully open lists for both parliamentary and municipal council elections, calling this a non-negotiable condition.
"They refuse to allow the lists for municipal councilors to be open. This is a request from all opposition political parties. We categorically do not accept any list other than the open one for councilors and a completely open list for parliamentarians," the democratic leader said.
The request for open lists is an issue that deserves debate and transparency, but what stands out is the political contradiction in relation to participation in the two parliamentary committees.
On the one hand, the Democrats refuse to participate in the Territorial Reform process, arguing that the Socialists have violated the trust between the parties. On the other hand, the same distrust seems to be temporarily set aside when it comes to the Electoral Reform.
If the Socialists are not reliable partners for Territorial Reform, what makes them reliable for Electoral Reform?
