After questions raised about the list of Startup Albania winners, the Ministry has chosen to respond in the strangest possible way: Not with documents, not with clarifications about the criteria, not with full transparency about the evaluation, but with an applicant who did not win and who comes out satisfied with the fact that he did not win.
Minister Delina Ibrahimaj has today published the story of Kreshnik, an applicant who was not among the winners of Startup Albania this time, but who, according to her, appreciates the transparency of the process and calls on young people to apply. So, at the height of the public debate on how around 6 million euros of public funds have been allocated, the ministry does not bring answers to the problematic winners, but a moral testimony from a happy loser.
The message is visually beautiful: every idea deserves a chance, every application is a step forward, to try, to get feedback, to come back stronger. But the problem is not the motivation of young people. The problem is whether public money has been allocated according to criteria, whether the winners meet the conditions, whether the projects are really startups, and whether the process has been as transparent as it is being advertised.
Even more interesting is the minister's next sentence: "This year, 20 winning startups had applied before. They came back, improved their projects and succeeded." Instead of allaying doubts, it increases them. Because the question that arises is not whether someone has the right to apply more than once, but why names and projects are repeated, how they were evaluated, what really changed from one call to the next and why the public should be content with motivational posts, when it comes to millions of euros from the budget.
In a normal process, the ministry would publish the full scorecards, the rationale for each winner, compliance with the regulatory criteria, and the documentation justifying the funding. Instead, we are offered a success story without success: An applicant who did not win, but who serves to certify the happiness of the process.
This is perhaps the newest phase of public communication: When you can't convince with the winners, you go out and convince with the losers. And when you can't answer the main question of who got the money and why, you turn the debate into a "startup journey". Only we're not talking about a motivational seminar here. We're talking about public funds. And for public funds, a video, a smile, and an applicant saying they're glad they didn't win are not enough.
