There is an unwritten "law" in Albanian politics where many problems are only revealed after political friendships are broken. This seems to be the case in the recent debate between socialist MP Erion Braçe and the MP who became an independent just a few weeks ago, Marjana Koçeku, where the issue of ownership documents of "Neomalsore Agroturizëm" is at the center this time.
The spark of the clash was ignited after Braçe publicly raised the question of whether the agrotourism owned by Koçek has ownership documents for the land where it operates. According to him, every activity must function on a regular legal basis and with the relevant documentation.
Koçek's response came via social media and was not only a denial, but also a criticism of the state. The MP admitted that her family does not have property documents, although they have lived in the area for three generations. According to her, the problem is not the lack of will of the residents, but the failure of the state to resolve the property issue.
"No, Mr. Braçe, I don't have the papers. My mother came there as a girl, became a mother and became a grandmother. There are three generations there and zero documents... Tell me: did my parents and the residents of those areas lack the will, or did the state lack the will?", writes Koçek.
But beyond the lines, this seems to be another political theater.
If Braçe's concern about property documents is real, why is it emerging now, after Koçek left the Socialist Party parliamentary group? Wasn't the same activity in operation even when the MP was part of the majority? If there were irregularities, why didn't she ask for transparency earlier, but only remembered now that Koçek left the parliamentary group to which Braçe belongs?
On the other hand, Koçek's argument also leaves room for the same question. If her family and hundreds of residents of the area have been suffering for decades from the lack of property documents, why wasn't this problem raised with the same force when she was a Socialist Party MP and part of the majority that ran the country? Why didn't Koçek raise it as a concern as an MP, and even more so as part of the government, but only criticizes it after breaking away from the majority?
Thus, the debate seems to be no longer about ownership, but about the next political protagonist of who will grab the most headlines in the media. Law and state emerge as arguments only as political alliances change, while the problems affecting citizens remain the same.
In the end, the greatest irony is that both protagonists are talking today about the responsibility of the state, while one is still part of the governing majority, while the other was part of it until recently. If the issue of law enforcement and the problem of property documents is important, then perhaps it should have been resolved when both were on the same side of the table, and not used as an argument in a political clash after parting ways but which offers no solution.
In the end, only the protagonist remains. One suddenly discovers the lack of documents, the other equally suddenly discovers the failure of the state. The only thing they seem not to have discovered yet is their political responsibility for the fact that these problems continue to exist.
