Written by: Adri Nurellari
In the spring of 1831, a young French aristocrat, only 25 years old, Alexis de Tocqueville, boarded a ship for America, not to explore the world, but to discover the essence of a new social order. He was accompanied by a fellow lawyer on a state mission to study American prisons. However, more than innovation in prisons, Tocqueville was attracted by the American political system and the question: How did the light of the Enlightenment, born in the aristocratic salons of Paris, find shelter and flourish among the fields of Virginia and the churches of Boston? Did they find in America the most suitable terrain to take root? After traveling cross-country for a full 9 months, Tocqueville wrote not only the official report on prisons, but also an extraordinary book that remains a classic for universities: “Democracy in America”.
The main answer to the question posed, according to him, lay not only in the distance from the old feudal structures, but also in the unique social and moral character of the American colonies. They were often dominated by religious, cultural or ethnic communities that had emigrated from Europe precisely to escape persecution by the majority, whether by the state church, absolutist monarchies or colonizers who imposed foreign identities and beliefs on them. The America he saw was like a Noah's ark for persecuted communities filled with: English Puritans, persecuted by the Church of England; Quakers and Baptists, oppressed for their doctrinal deviations; French Protestant Huguenots, expelled by the Catholic monarchy; Irish Catholics, discriminated against by British Protestant invaders; the Dutch, fleeing Spanish domination and repression during the Eighty Years' War; German Lutherans, displaced due to sectarian conflicts or oppression by Prussian absolutism; Jews, who sought a safe haven away from the cruel pogroms of Eastern Europe, etc.
This rich mosaic of persecuted communities built a society with a fresh memory of persecution by the majority. They knew firsthand and had experienced the painful weight of intolerance, when the majority, in the name of morality, nation or religion, turned into a weapon of oppression against the individual and any dissenting voice. Therefore, strong principles of freedom of speech and conscience, individual rights and the protection of the minority were laid at the foundation of American democracy, as a guarantee to avoid a repetition of the tyranny that these people had left behind. In this context, Tocqueville, with the keen eye of an observer of society and the sensitivity of a man who seeks the essence beyond the facade, understood the key to the success of American democracy and pointed out that democracy around the world was no longer threatened by the tyranny of tyrants, but by the tyranny of the majority. Instead of rule by an absolute sovereign, the potential threat came from the crowd, because now there was the possibility that the majority would take on the role of oppressive power. With the legitimacy that the vote gives, the majority can exert pressure on dissent, not through violence, but through norms, exclusion, and social conformity.
The new tyranny does not need classical violent repressive tools; it operates through public opinion and the fear of collective stigmatization. This was the essence of Tocqueville’s warning: that democracy does not automatically guarantee individual freedom and that every democratic system, regardless of its form, carries the potential for abuse unless it is invested in a deep democratic culture and unless institutional safeguards against majority rule are built. This is also the most valuable lesson for today’s Kosovo: that democracy without control can degenerate into another form of control; with the face of the majority, but with the effects of authoritarianism. So freedom is never secure, not even under the banner of democracy. I did this whole story to highlight that Tocqueville’s warning is more relevant than ever for the current crisis. Following the certification of the results of the February 9 elections, Kosovo is facing an institutional and constitutional crisis that reflects precisely this phenomenon: a relative parliamentary majority that is not using its power to build functional institutions and represent the interests of all citizens, but to block them and impose authoritarian control on behalf of the majority. This is the tyranny of the majority in action: when legitimacy gained through voting is used to usurp and block democratic processes, transforming the majority into an oppressive power that undermines pluralism and institutions.
The Constitutional Court’s decision represented an attempt to restore constitutional discipline and prevent further degeneration of democracy. The Court left no room for political games or propaganda alibi, but pointed the finger at the problems and responsibilities and drew a red line to the parliamentary arrogance that is holding Kosovo hostage. Regarding the 30-day deadline for the functioning of the Assembly, the Constitutional Court removed any guesswork by saying that “within this deadline, all constitutional actions that result in the constitution of the Assembly must be carried out”. So, we are already in violation or non-fulfillment of constitutional obligations, because 100 days have passed. It recalled that the agenda of the constitutive session is not a menu that can be changed at will, but an immutable constitutional structure that guarantees institutional functioning. It also emphasized that secret voting cannot be imposed as a tactical maneuver without a constitutional and procedural basis. The decision also unequivocally determined that the Assembly must be constituted within 30 days from the date of the announcement of the judgment. Furthermore, the judgment clarified that the exclusive right to propose a candidate for Speaker of the Assembly is simultaneously an obligation for the largest parliamentary group to secure a majority through dialogue and compromise.
On the other hand, MPs have the right to vote according to their free will and cannot be forced to accept a candidacy from the majority. In other words, the court emphasized that the majority does not have the privilege to rule, but the obligation to cooperate with others through political compromise, as the essence of a pluralistic system. Here it is worth making a clarifying stop for all those voices that either servile Kurti's power or have misunderstood democracy, who demand that the opposition submit and vote for Haxhiu's candidacy. In a functional democracy, the opposition is neither a decoration to decorate the political scene nor just a number that meets the parliamentary quotas. It is the main defender of balance and checks against the arbitrariness of the majority. As Tocqueville explains, democracy is not simply the vote of the majority that rules without limits, but a system of rules, checks and balances that restrain any attempt at capture or absolute domination. When the majority crosses the red line, the opposition has not only the right, but also the undeniable duty to stand up for the institutions, to block and denounce. Asking the opposition to simply remain passive, or worse, to support the destructive behavior of the majority, is like asking for the brakes to not work while the car is sliding towards the abyss.
And the saddest thing is that there are many ordinary citizens or public figures who are not part of any political camp, but who automatically join the stronger side, giving priority to power over principles and demanding the submission of the opposition to the arrogant will of the majority. This phenomenon is not simply a rational choice, but often stems from deep social and historical reflexes, such as the tribalist tendency to protect themselves by hiding within a dominant group, or the opportunism that seeks security in the arms of the winner for personal gain. This can also be seen as a legacy of historical traumas, where survival has been conditioned by humility or obedience to strong authority, regardless of the justice of the issue. In fact, nobility and humanity are measured precisely by standing by the weak, since the strong do not need additional protection. But whatever its origin, this kind of attitude is in clear contrast to the fundamental principles of democracy, which require civic engagement based on values, dialogue and moral responsibility, and not submission to force or passive conformity. In this way, this reflex distances individuals from their critical role as defenders of the rule of law and weakens the foundations of pluralism and democratic debate. The situation becomes even more serious and complicated, now that the verdict of the Constitutional Court (which should have been a binding guide for every institution) has been shamelessly and flagrantly violated.
Instead of bringing a solution, the ruling majority has chosen to challenge the highest legal decision of the country, turning the crisis from political into an open constitutional challenge. The decision on the Secret Voting Committee has no constitutional or regulatory basis and disrupts the established order of the constitutive session, which cannot be changed arbitrarily. In addition, the interruption of the session by the chairman is illegal and impedes the normal development of the parliamentary process, delaying the election of the speaker and deepening the institutional crisis. What is happening in Kosovo today is not simply a parliamentary deadlock, but an alarm bell for all those who believe in the democratic order. We are experiencing a dramatic confrontation between two visions of understanding democracy: one that reduces it to parliamentary arithmetic, where the majority does whatever it wants, and the other, the one that sees democracy as an architecture built on rules, checks, balances, institutional respect and a spirit of cooperation. When a majority extends its power by blocking and challenging the Constitutional Court, we are no longer dealing with legitimate representation, but with a new and more insidious form of authoritarianism. Therefore, this is not a moment for indifference, nor for conformism.
Kosovo today needs more than ever conscious voices, citizens who do not automatically join the “strong”, but who stand up in defense of the principles, the law and the fundamental values that Tocqueville saw as the cornerstone of the magic of American democracy. This is the moment to raise our voices, to defend the rule of law and to demand accountability, because history does not forgive indifference and democracy does not defend itself. It needs citizens who do not bow to force, but who stand by the right, even when the right does not please the crowd or the power.
edition
t7 live
