The political agreement between the majority and opposition reached on 18 May, seems to be opening the path for the electoral and constitutional reform. Former MP, who has participated in the drafting of the Constitution and former chief justice of the Constitutional Court, Fehmi Abdiu sees these reforms as being closely related to each other. But, the prominent lawyer demands something more: Changes in the electoral system
In an interview for Albanian Free Press, he explains the reasons why it is necessary to go back to the majority system, which offers a better and a more democratic relation between constituents and their representatives, MPs.
Interviewed for Albanian Free Press by Alket Aliu
One of the points of the agreement between Rama and Basha is the electoral reform. Do you consider them as necessary?
One of the changes which are becoming a necessity is the change of the electoral system. After the ‘90s, the electoral has constantly changed from a majority-proportional, to the present one, regional proportional. I would consider the current system as a “system of appointments”, a system of lists with people appointed by party chairmen, supposedly with the consent of the party’s leading structures. In fact, they are pure appointments of MPs by the chairmen of the parties. Look at what happened when the majority parties drafted the lists of candidates. Nobody knows how the names that were published came out.
In essence, this electoral system is the worst one which has ever applied in the post-communist Albania. Moving from a majority system which confronted intellectual, human, social and family values that relate to the character and the integrity of the candidate and the objectives of the parties that proposed them, led to a replacement through no legitimate causes with the regional proportional system which is in power. Then, the latter degenerated into a system of lists with appointed people.
This was justified with the fact that the majority system was more difficult, more conflicting, more expensive and the new system had other advantages. But, in my opinion, that system had no disadvantages whatsoever.
Do you want proof on this? Compare the values, character, integrity and intellectual capacities of the MPs who have been elected through the majority system with the MPs of the last Parliament.
You will see that in the last parliament, the proportional system degenerated completely. Parliament saw the election of friends of the chairmen, convicted people, people without integrity, people with money. There were very few MPs with an intellectual horizon and personality and even fewer with scientific titles which have been earned based on merit.
You are against this system because of the way MPs are elected?
There are many problems. With this system, there are no more relations between voters and their representatives, MPs. Today, voters don’t know who is their MP. There are formal declarations “this one comes from your area”, when presenting a candidate to voters, but nothing has been defined legally.
A very important phase for the functioning of democracy has been avoided this way: accountability of the representatives in front of the people that they represent. Legally, the MP must offer explanations and inform his constituents on the work that has been done.
Mentality in regards to the relations between MPs and constituents must change. It should be sanctioned in the Constitution that every MP should report to his constituents. While in non-profit organizations the directors are obliged to report in front of the assembly that has elected them, the MP reports to nobody.
Would a change in the election system, even if it means restoring the majority system, be enough for the electoral reform? How will this be harmonized with the Constitution?
The amendments that should be done in the Constitution as part of the electoral reform, must also affect other institutions. Such institution is also the Central Election Commission. We can never have free and fair elections with a political Central Election Commission. There cannot be elections with standards with small electoral commissions comprised of party representatives.
In this aspect, the electoral reform is certainly linked to the constitutional reform, but I would recommend for the latter to be even deeper.
When you speak of a deep constitutional reform, you also have other institutions in mind which must be reviewed?
Of course. Starting with the President of Republic.
The chapter on the President of Republic must be reviewed, because during all these years, many of his powers have been lifted without legitimate cause.
We need to discuss the essence of his election. There have been discussions and proposals on the way the President is elected and for him to be elected directly by the people. If up until a few years ago we did not have many supporters of this idea, now, the number of those who demand such thing has increased. I am convinced that this is necessary for Albania, as the President should not be a tool of two or three parties’ chairmen. However he is elected with the amended Constitution, he can never be higher than the Prime Minister and the head of majority or opposition, because they don’t think the President should be more important than them. Above all, the President cannot become representative of the unity of the people, as the Constitution stipulates, when he is elected with 71 votes in Parliament.
But, a part of the powers which used to belong to the President, now belong to other institutions, mainly the government. This means that the part that has to do with the Council of Ministers must change?
There should also be scrutiny over the party that relates to the Council of Ministers. A part of the provisions are controversial and a part are meaningless. A part of them lack the necessary elements. In general, I can say that the chapter on the government is one of the weakest chapters.
But other parts that relate to the Council of Ministers are also problematic. This chapter doesn’t have any provision which would serve as an orientation to solve political crises as the last one that we had or particular parliamentary crises. In my opinion, such cases must be provided for. Meanwhile, the procedure for the appointment of the ministers must also be simpler.
