DREAM / The Prime Minister resigns and wakes up under the Parisian bridge!

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

Why am I leaving the Joint Movement…

2025-06-02 13:27:53Politikë SHKRUAR NGA ALBAN PIRA
Why am I leaving the Joint Movement…
Alban Pira's poster during the campaign

The first part of this article is a brief historical summary of the Political Organization, the “University in Danger” Movement and the “For the University” Movement from my perspective as an activist engaged in each of these groups. While the second part constitutes a critical analysis of what the Together Movement represents today and the complex reality that surrounds it.

Political Organization (PO)

In the fall of 2011, I, along with some friends from the Political Science department, began attending meetings of a group called the Political Organization. This organization was a space where we went to better understand the political circumstances and develop a strategy for political engagement outside of traditional frameworks. In this environment, we found various figures such as Arlind Qori, Leart Kola, Deni Sandxhaku, Redi Muci, Jani Marka and many others, who for some time played a role in the development of the idea of ​​​​the organization.

In 2013, after the parliamentary elections, some of the members of the Political Organization left, while others – such as Deni, Jani, Arlindi and Redi – continued their political engagement within the Political Organization. From 2011 to 2018, the student cause was the only real political engagement of this organization. During this period, its activity focused almost exclusively on higher education issues and on mediating student organizing through the “University in Danger” Movement and the “For the University” Movement.

From “University in Danger” to the “For the University” Movement – ​​a continuation of the same resistance.
Towards the end of 2011, in an increasingly difficult climate for students, a new revolt began to take shape within university environments. It began with dissatisfaction with the obligation to take the TOEFL exam and against forced and unpaid internships for some study branches. It was precisely in this context that a group of Political Science students launched a symbolic action by pasting sheets with the inscription “University in Danger” on the walls of the faculty. This act marked the beginning of a movement that would spread further to other faculties and consolidate as a student organization with the aim of protecting public higher education and student rights.

“University in Danger” was the first articulated reaction to attempts to commercialize the university. It built a spirit of solidarity and awareness among students, creating a nucleus of activism that lasted until 2013. In the middle of that year, due to internal tensions and debates over the direction and strategies of action, part of this group decided to resume work in a new form, founding the “For the University” Movement.

This new movement, albeit with a different name, continued in the same essential direction as its predecessor: the defense of public education and the construction of a university as a democratic space. With a more structured strategy and with experiences accumulated from the previous phase, the “Movement for the University” organized protests, symbolic actions, public discussions and sustained interventions in academic life. It managed to create a network of activists and play a key role in raising student consciousness, nurturing a culture of resistance that culminated in the massive protests of December 2018.

From the beginning, neither the “University in Danger” Movement nor the “For the University” Movement actually functioned as independent entities, despite the fact that the role of the Political Organization was initially only intermediary. Both were eventually used as instruments of the Political Organization to extend influence in the field of student activism according to Gramsci’s concept of extending hegemony through ideological and cultural control, shaping the way social groups think and act. In this context, the Political Organization used these movements as tools to expand its influence and consolidate its political position within universities and among students. However, this influence did not come without internal debates. The control and influence of the Political Organization within these movements led to disagreements over their direction and strategy, which caused the departure of some activists who criticized the organization’s hegemony within the student movement.

With the decline of the large student protests of 2018, the Political Organization practically stopped all student organization activities, reducing its engagement in messages but without concrete actions on the ground. It shifted its focus to the labor cause, concentrating on building unions in difficult sectors such as Bulqiza, Ballshi, and Call Centers. However, efforts to establish a trade union movement faced major challenges: union leaders were dismissed, while the Political Organization did not have the infrastructure and resources necessary to provide effective protection and security to those facing pressure from employers and the state. As a result, these blows and the lack of support led to the collapse of the established unions and the trade union path that was started, marking a heavy loss for labor organization in the country.

In 2021, the Political Organization made its first direct attempt at electoral elections, supporting the candidacy of miner Elton Debreshi as an independent in Dibër. It was a symbolic moment: an underground worker challenged the political system from the very heart of one of the most marginalized regions of the country. His candidacy embodied the aspiration to represent a different politics, emerging from below, from the very people who face injustice and insecurity every day. However, despite the initial resonance and the sincere involvement of dozens of activists, the result was disappointing. The campaign encountered the real limits of a structure without a support network, without resources and without an infrastructure that could withstand the machinery of the big parties.

Beyond the concrete result, that experience marked a turning point: it clearly revealed how deep the gap was between the desire for authentic representation and the real possibility of building a sustainable political organization of the working class. The hope for an electoral representation of the workers was severely hit, leaving behind more questions than answers about the strategy, forms and path to follow to build a real left-wing political alternative in Albania. As a result of these disappointments and internal debates on the validity of the commitment to the workers' cause by the Political Organization, a group of activists who did not agree with the continuation of the organization's trade union path also left.

Since the “University in Danger”, throughout the years of the “For the University” Movement and up to the unionist turn of the Political Organization, dozens of key figures have left — activists who gave identity, energy and direction to these different phases of engagement. These departures were not simply a consequence of fatigue or the transition to new life stages of these people but mainly the result of repeated clashes over strategic direction, the role of hegemony in the organization and the lack of an honest collective reflection on the failures and limitations accumulated over the years. Many of them left behind not only a numerical void but also a deep political and intellectual void. This continuous void is the clearest evidence that the crisis has not been simply personal or contingent, but structural — a crisis of models of organization and of the meanings of political engagement itself.

The Together Movement – ​​The New One That Is Not Being Born!

The Together Movement was founded in December 2022, at the first Congress where the transformation from a political organization to a party was formalized. The first and second Congresses were attended by fewer than 200 members, while many of those who worked for years to build this project were not included in these founding processes. This lack of inclusion is not simply an organizational error but reflects, in my opinion, a deeper problem: a distance between the leading elite and the real base of activists and supporters. If this challenge is not addressed with sincerity, the Together Movement risks turning into another closed structure, far from reality and without the real strength to challenge the existing political system.
In the Together Movement, I held the position of diaspora leader for a year, where I was responsible for organizing and coordinating membership abroad. I started my work with a small database of members and through daily engagement and cooperation with other members in the diaspora, this database expanded to over 1000 members before the May 11 elections. This result was achieved through systematic organizational work, flexible methods of coordination and decentralization of the structure, taking as a good example the self-functioning of the organizational base in Italy. Thanks to the contribution of the membership in the diaspora, the Together Movement managed to raise considerable funds but also to secure 4346 votes in the last elections, proving the great potential of political engagement abroad.
During the year and a half that I have been a member of the Secretariat of the Together Movement, I have maintained a critical and constructive stance towards the way our structures are organized. I have always been demanding regarding responsibility and accountability within the party, emphasizing the need for transparency and concrete political work. In every meeting I have expressed deep dissatisfaction with the lack of concrete results and the way the structures were functioning, constantly demanding changes and improvements that would enable a more efficient performance and more focused on political work. My critical stance has always aimed at transforming the Joint Movement from a formal organization to a political force with real influence in society.
A fundamental problem facing the Joint Movement Secretariat is political infantility and organizational amateurism, which has directly affected the overall functioning of the party. This lack of political maturity has created a situation where democracy within our structures has turned into an “upside-down democracy”: the formal structure exists only as a facade, while important decisions are made by the Secretariat in a centralized manner. As a result, this has led to a considerable organizational deficit and a noticeable demotivation among the ranks of the grassroots, who often have not felt any real involvement in the decision-making processes. This dynamic has not only hindered the development and consolidation of our organization but has also raised questions among members about the democratic values ​​that should guide us.

Our inability to clearly identify where and how to focus the resources and people we had available during the campaign created an organizational chaos that was more harm than good. Instead of the leadership structures serving as the main pillars of local organization and mobilization on the ground, they were reduced to mere passive participants in a series of meetings without a clear strategy and without concrete responsibilities. This situation led to a meaningless distribution of our energy and resources, weakening our influence on the ground and creating an atmosphere of confusion within the structures. Instead of being an engine of change and a collector of votes, the leaders became mere witnesses to a process that was not built with a clear mind and a consolidated strategy.

One of the biggest and most important mistakes that the Joint Movement has made and that has unfortunately never been acknowledged as such is the unresolved conflict with Adriatik Lapaj. This conflict, kept hidden under the cloak of silence, continues to have a negative impact on the public image of the Joint Movement. Failure to confront this problem and the lack of reflection on the mistakes made demonstrate political immaturity and a resistance to necessary self-criticism. Moreover, even after the elections, the Joint Movement continues to maintain a rigid and confrontational stance towards new rivals, reinforcing divisions and conveying messages that weaken our mission. This stance reflects an overlap of narrow party interests over the need for real change in the country, proving that even within our internal politics, the struggle for positions and ego dominate, instead of building a serious and transformative political project.

In the absence of stable and organized structures, the Together Movement campaign in these elections relied mainly on the spirit and enthusiasm of its members. Here too, instead of highlighting our values ​​and potential, the focus was placed on attacks on political opponents and new rivals, focusing more on criticism of others than on the positive offer for change. This approach essentially meant that we largely attracted angry and dissatisfied voters, who were ready to vote against the current system but not necessarily for a constructive vision and a clear future. Moreover, these elections proved that the Together Movement failed to become a force that would “erode” the Socialist Party or that would provide a strong political alternative; we still do not know exactly who voted for us and why. For me, this campaign was a reflection of our organizational weaknesses and the lack of a deep and consolidated political strategy.

The Joint Movement's strategy of focusing almost exclusively on the closed list led in practice to the political burning of the open list. Although it formally existed, in reality it was not treated as part of the campaign: there was neither a strategy to activate it, nor consistent communication with the candidates, nor their involvement in events or decision-making. The vast majority of the open list candidates were left silent and ignored, being de facto excluded from the campaign. Only 40-50 candidates took an active role in the field, while the majority were left out of a process that was supposed to be inclusive and mobilizing. Meanwhile, other entities that burned only a third of the list managed to create an internal competition that mobilized the candidates to seek votes and increase their presence in the community. This failure of the Joint Movement to build a real strategy around the open list was not technical, but political — because it essentially sent a signal of a lack of trust in the base and an inability to build a broad representative team.

When I proposed the slogan “The New is Born” to the Coordinating Council, I did not think of it simply as an electoral tool but as a political call for the birth of a new era – a moment that invited all alternatives that challenge the old system and the old parties to share this horizon of change together. The slogan was intended to include, not exclude. But this slogan met with resistance from the Joint Movement itself, precisely because of a deep sense of exclusivity that characterizes this political force – a tendency to appropriate every new hope and every language of change for itself alone. This became evident during the campaign, where “The New is Born” became a symbolic property of the Joint Movement and not as an open invitation to all those who challenge the current order. For me, “The New” does not have just one name or one face. It is made up of many different names and faces — all those who seek a real and profound change in our system. "The new is emerging" is a call for a new era, where no single entity dominates, but where multiple alternatives coexist and collaborate that radically challenge the old system and traditional parties.

For all the above reasons, and knowing the structure of the Joint Movement in depth, it is clear to me that change has become almost impossible. Those who should have been the first in the process of reflection and openness are precisely those who most fanatically defend the existing situation. This has produced a culture of closure, exclusion and self-defense, where any criticism is experienced as a danger and not as a political opportunity. In this climate, where the critical voice is suppressed and change is sabotaged from within, my departure is not a resignation but a political act of opposition to a structure that no longer leaves room for internal emancipation. However, I will continue my political commitment as a free and independent person, remaining faithful to the ideals of equality, justice and social progress.

In closing, I would like to thank in particular those 211 people who trusted me with their votes in these elections and all the members of the Together Movement, with whom we had the opportunity to walk this journey full of challenges and hope. In the spirit of this shared commitment, I am reminded of Bertolt Brecht's words: "It is not enough that good be good, it must also be strong." This is the call that challenges us not to give up, to fight with courage and passion for a future where change is not just a dream but an undeniable reality . / Taken from the author's Facebook, Alban Pira, activist of the Together Movement and former secretary for the Diaspora


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×