INSURRECTION/ SP MPs rebel, drag Gjati to vote on territorial division!

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

2026-10-07 19:17:47Pikëpamje SHKRUAR NGA YLLI MANJANI
Star Manjani

The DP continues to be cacophonous in its public stances. It is not a matter of different opinions, but of different positions within the same opinion that exclude each other. Meanwhile, citizens are asked to protest for one of them.

Official representatives of the Democratic Party, on Monday's Erla Mehilli show, stated very clearly that the new territorial map is not an electoral problem.

Their reasoning was even logical. Small municipalities that can be absorbed by larger municipalities do not have such electoral weight as to change the political outcome of existing large units. Cases such as Rrogozhina or Fushë-Arrëzi were cited as examples.

However, the official DP has meanwhile articulated another thesis that the change of the territorial map is being done precisely for electoral purposes.

Then tell us what the truth is? Is territorial reform electoral or not?

Both cannot be true.

If changing the map does not really affect the electoral result, then the accusation of electoral manipulation should be set aside and the debate should be held where it makes sense. That is, on the functionality of local government, decentralization, services, representation, and costs.

If, on the contrary, the map is being constructed to favor the SP electorally, then this must be proven. It must be shown where, how, in which municipalities, and with what concrete effect on the vote.

It's not enough to say "it's electoral." You have to show the electoral mechanism.

In fact, yesterday and today Berisha does not seem to be insisting on this thesis any more. The argument is shifting to an even more general formula, according to which the new map is "to the detriment of the people."

Okay. But how is it to the detriment of the people? Which service deteriorates? Which area remains unrepresented? Which competence is removed from the citizen? How much does the distance with the administration increase? What does a community lose financially? What is the alternative model?

Without these answers, "to the detriment of the people" is such a general political statement that it can be used against any law, any reform, and any government decision.

This declaration alone is not a sufficient argument to tell people to quit their jobs, take to the streets, and come fight the government at the railings of Parliament.

Why should people do this, when the DP itself cannot clearly explain why?

At the moment, the most concrete argument seems to be the fact that the DP is requesting around 100 local units, while the SP is proposing 46.

But the number, in and of itself, is not public policy. Why is 100 better than 46? Why not 80? Why not 60? Why not 120?

A territorial map is not made by playing the pumpkin market: "not 46, but 100".

The number of municipalities can only make sense if it is based on the concepts of administrative efficiency, proximity of service to the citizen, financial autonomy, territorial representation, community identity, economic development or deepening decentralization.

If the DP thinks that 100 municipalities better implement this model, then it should present us with the model, not just the number.

In this debate, a concrete argument like Erion Braçe's may even have much more value, if it really touches on the way territorial organization affects communities, than the sterile battle between number 46 and number 100.

There is no doubt that a real argument is worth debating. A concrete injustice is worth protesting.

But for a number? For a slogan? For a reform that on Monday is not electoral, on Tuesday is electoral, and on Wednesday is simply "against the people"?

Here is the biggest problem of the DP, and it is not just territorial reform. It is the clarity of the political message.

A serious opposition does not have the duty to just say “no.” It must explain why not and, above all, what it proposes instead of what it opposes.

Otherwise, it remains what we have seen for a long time: unclear in thesis, cacophonous in argument, generic in denunciation, and poor in proposal for the future.

When the opposition is not clear about why they should protest, it is a bit excessive to ask citizens to be clearer than they are.

Anyway, good protest for the opposition nation!


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×