What is the worst model of governance?
When debating politics scientifically, it is not done with passions that command reason.
We need to look at the political system of governance.
We have one of the worst models, regardless of who is in power and who wants to come. Without changing it with some quick action, the drama will repeat itself! After the evil is gone, it comes again! We lose another half century. Other nations progress.
What is our model: The prime ministerial republic. The most terrible, the most cheerful, the most corrupt.
The constitutional monarchy has the advantage that for the head of state there was no war where dogs ate each other or bit each other, tearing the nation apart. The king is king!
Albania wants a kingdom, but there is no one to be king! That's the thing!
Even a softened dictatorship in the form of authoritarianism is better because in it the rule of one is at least expressed honestly and people are not wasted. They gather their wits. At least the dictator does not let the strong in each neighborhood oppress you. From neighborhood to neighborhood you have to negotiate the constitution of the neighborhood when the strong are in democracy.
Even presidential republics with two chambers are much better because the president cannot do whatever he wants and cannot do both chambers, that is, the parliament and the senate together, putting both in the same bag.
Even the empire is better because the power is far from the chaos, or Rome....
The Kanun wasn't bad, even though it was better than the prime ministerial republic! Some values were preserved, faith and religion!
Whereas the prime ministerial republic is, among other things, hypocritical because it makes the prime minister an emperor and on the other hand it is said that he is the prime minister. That there is supposedly a parliament that controls it, but the parliament goes all the way into its pocket.
He also has absolute power, meaning he has made decisions on his own, and he must discuss this power every four years: this puts every prime minister in crisis, makes him think only about the end of his power, and leaves no stone unturned for the next mandate.
Therefore, there is no resignation. There is resignation when the prime minister is the chief administrative officer, that's all. They left without a plan.
But where is the master of the country? When he has made individual decisions that whoever comes after him will be held accountable!!! Should he resign? It's not even a question!
He doesn't give up, at most he might give up, or they might take it away from him!