Without strong intellectual opposition, power cannot be overthrown. And our democracy as a common project remains unfinished.
Doruntina Meha
After the elections of December 28, 2025, Kosovo did not produce just one electoral result. It produced a new political reality: a government that speaks alone and an opposition that listens. One side with narrative, rhythm and political aggressiveness. The other with calculation, excessive caution and a silent fear that the next labeling will become an electoral cost.
And so something happened that rarely happens in a democracy, but when it does, it's alarming: the government won not only the votes, but also the psychological terrain of public debate.
Because elections are not lost only at the ballot box. The loss begins much earlier, when one side decides to attack without limit, while the other side decides not to react in order to appear “more responsible.” In theory, this is called prudence. In practice, it is called surrendering political space.
In the past, the opposition, whether from 2010-2020, at least created real political costs for the government through public pressure, concrete accusations of corruption or blocking sessions (although often those tactics went to extremes and turned against the very functionality of the institution). Today, the opposition entered the campaign with a heavy burden: ready-made labels, aggressive propaganda and a climate where any opposition was declared treason. But instead of facing this reality, it chose to avoid it. Instead of a clash of narratives, pale neutrality was chosen. Instead of a political offensive, electoral survival was chosen.
The result was predictable: the government's propaganda remained alone in the field. And propaganda, when not challenged, becomes "truth" for a large part of the public.
Precisely for this reason, today it seems as if Kosovo needs to announce a public competition for a function that should actually be fundamental in any democratic system: a functional opposition.
Not a decorative opposition. Not an opposition that only reacts when invited to the studio. Not an opposition that thinks that dignity is preserved by remaining silent. But an opposition that understands that its role is not to appear reasonable, but to be necessary as our Constitution also provides, where the opposition has a duty of parliamentary control to balance the executive branch.
Because power is not restrained by logic. It is restrained by pressure.
The criteria for this "competition" are minimal, but in our reality they seem revolutionary.
First, the opposition must understand that the political agenda is not expected but built. You cannot wait for the government to make mistakes in order to react. You must be the one to uncover them, explain them, and turn them into public issues. When scandals remain at the level of daily news and do not turn into a political battle, the government does not feel any cost.
Second, we need immunity to propaganda. Labeling is not an argument, but a weapon to silence the opponent. When the opposition retreats from fear of labeling, propaganda has won the battle without a fight. Democracy is not a terrain for those who seek comfort but a terrain for those who endure pressure.
Third, the response to power cannot be technical and cold, when power speaks with emotions and narrative. In politics, the silent argument is lost in the face of a loud slogan. The opposition must learn to communicate with force, clarity and rhythm, not just with formal precision.
Fourth, protest is not an institutional shame. It is a democratic tool, but only when it is organized and purposeful, not destructive as in the past. When crises pass without public reaction, citizens learn that politics is a television spectacle, not a real clash of interests.
But above all, the opposition must understand a simple truth: strong power is not always a problem. The problem is when it is faced with a weak counterweight. Then democracy loses its balance.
Because democracy is not a monologue. It is tension. It is a clash. It is constant control. When these are absent, power begins to confuse the majority with absolute right and public debate degrades into a discursive hegemony where the alternative no longer exists as a real possibility.
And therein lies the reason for the defeat: not just the power of propaganda, but the lack of opposition to it. Not just the ability of the government to dominate the narrative, but the inability of the opposition to challenge it with intellect, pace, and persistence.
Therefore, this “competition” is not a satire for laughs. It is a call for a return to the essence of politics as the art of rational opposition. If the opposition fails to regain its role as an intellectual and institutional counterweight by constructing arguments that penetrate beyond slogans, by exposing contradictions without falling into the traps of free emotions, then Kosovo risks moving from a fragile democracy to a post-democratic form: efficient administration of a majority that is no longer challenged.
A country without continuous intellectual tension is not stability. It is stagnation disguised as consensus. And history shows us that such stagnation does not last forever, but when it breaks, it is often broken from without, not from within.
So, apply. Not for a heroic role. But to restore the necessary logic of pluralism in a space that is losing it.
Because without strong intellectual opposition, power cannot be overthrown. And our democracy as a common project remains unfinished.
edition
t7 live
