Former President Behgjet Pacolli has raised questions about why there should be elections again and why this mockery of citizens, despite what he mentioned when he had his conviction in 2007 that the president should be elected directly by the people.
He says that when the fate of the president is decided by MPs and so-called "safe votes" or party calculations, the institution of the President risks being reduced to an instrument of day-to-day politics.
Why another election?
Why this mockery?
The idea of electing the President of the country directly by the people has been MY CONVINCEMENT since 2007. No one supported me then. If you look back, you see that my colleagues at the time (some of whom are still MPs today), accused me of "wanting to impose systems of birth." That's where we are now!
In a genuine democratic system, the office of President should be an expression of the will of the citizens and not the result of closed agreements between political parties. When the President is elected by the citizens, he receives direct democratic legitimacy and represents the entire people, not just the interests of a temporary parliamentary majority.
Today, when the fate of the President is decided by the deputies and by the so-called “safe votes” or party calculations, the institution of the President risks being reduced to an instrument of the politics of the day. Instead of being a unifying figure and guarantor of the Constitution, the President is often seen as a product of political bargaining, secret agreements and narrow party interests. This not only weakens the moral authority of this institution, but also distances it from the citizens it is supposed to represent.
It is paradoxical that the institution that should symbolize the unity of the nation depends on the votes of a limited group of deputies, who (do not understand logic) and are closely tied to the demands and interests of their party leaderships.
Under these circumstances, the election of the President by Parliament could easily turn into a formal process, where the outcome is known in advance and where any element of direct citizen will is missing.
Moreover, such a practice risks degrading the institution of the President to a symbolic position without real moral and democratic weight. When citizens are unable to directly express their will for this important state figure, a sense of distancing and distrust towards institutions is created.
Therefore, if we want the President to be a true representative of national unity and a guarantor of the Constitution, and not a puppet, the fairest and most democratic way is for him to be elected directly by the people. Only in this way can this institution gain full democratic legitimacy and be freed from dependence on narrow party calculations.
Otherwise, continuing the current practice risks turning the process of electing the President into a political farce, where the institution that should be above the parties actually remains their hostage.
t7 live
