With 31 March, the pre-election phase of the opposition parties’ activity came to an end. On 31 March, the pre-election phase of the opposition parties’ activity came to an end. For the PR it lasted only 64 days, encompassing the birth of the party (10.1.1991) and of its press, with the newspaper «Republika» (10.2.1991); its spread in Tirana and the districts through the establishment of 25 branches; its recognition at home and abroad as a political force offering a democratic alternative, opposed to the PPSH; the nomination of 165 candidates for deputies; participation in the elections of 31 March; and emerging from them without winning a single seat in the People’s Assembly. In short: we only sowed. Of course, we believe that the seeds we sowed will sprout, and very soon we will have something to reap. Nevertheless, at this stage in our existence as a new political formation, people recognize many of the PR’s achievements. Someone might say: what use are all these things to us when we have no representatives in the new People’s Assembly? Whoever loses should not make excuses. That is fair. But the elections of 31 March, as the first pluralist elections in Albania, constitute a social phenomenon of particular interest that must be analyzed and examined in order to draw conclusions and gain experience that will serve the country in its rapid, uninterrupted progress toward a full democracy of European dimensions, and particularly the PR and all the other opposition parties, for their further recognition and consolidation as political forces. On 31 March, democracy gained less than it was entitled to, as did the alternative. It was represented only by the PD. The country remained monist once again, although the formalist parliament will be called pluralist. What happened here was a phenomenon repeated in several other Eastern countries without pluralist traditions: the polarization of the electorate toward the more extreme opposition parties, or those with the greatest chance of winning. The 31 March vote in our country was an emotional vote, anxiously awaiting the outcome of the first contest between democracy and the PPSH, which had administered the country’s political and economic life for 46 years. The democratic forces gathered entirely around the PD as the strongest party, sidelining the other alternatives. The same was done by the forces loyal to and sympathetic toward the PPSH. This led to a two-party Assembly dominated by the PPSH. Thus, from a monist state to a new monist state. Democracy took a step forward, which should be welcomed as a victory for the country, but it remains a step whose scale does not meet the demands of the times or the historical context through which Albanian society is passing. This is where its danger lies. That danger appeared two days after the elections with the massacre in Shkodër and all the chain of events that followed in its wake. If before 31 March the hope of the elections kept us going, after 1 April many questions remain about the country’s political life and its course. Will this two-party parliament function? Will this political «bicycle» stay upright? We say: hardly! And, consequently, Europe will leave us to our fate, which leads us toward the unknown, among which the lesser evil would be early elections. Why does this happen? Elections are not an act, but a process that unfolds over time. It is true that they were held peacefully and formally administered correctly, notwithstanding particular incidents. This is the impression foreigners have formed too, though not all of them. The Bulgarians, with their democratic experience, and American experts say otherwise. And we are trying to express our own view. They could have been entirely different had their «architect», the PPSH, wanted that. Fearing defeat, it made a mistake this time as well, postponing the choice demanded by the times, at the expense of the people and their hardships. It did not allow a democratic ensemble to be formed to lead the country, representing all the political tendencies among the masses. After the elections, many arguments are being heard and much talk is being made about deep roots, predictions and loyalty to the PPSH, as though it were the party that needed saving, rather than the people with their poverty. Leaders of the PPSH, you should be more realistic and less sentimental. You would have had a different standing if you had honestly opened the green shoots to democracy. By saying this, we are not asking for the impossible. First: it accepted an election date (31.3.1991) that was far removed from the requirements for developing a fair electoral contest, and, above all, retained a law drafted before political pluralism was accepted. The opposition parties needed time to spread and consolidate, to put forward candidates and campaign on their platforms, while the PPSH had everything rigged. Second: the fair demand made on 9.2.1991 to change the voting system from majoritarian to proportional and to depoliticize the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Army was accompanied by two shortcomings: a long deadline for action (15.3.1991), and a lack of persistence after that deadline had passed. Once the PD had filled 250 seats with candidates and the PR 165, a moment of euphoria and defiance arose, weakening the democratic camp. Third: the opposition camp lacked coordination in presenting candidates (as the PPSH did with its own affiliated entities), according to their chances of winning: the PD should have stood stronger in some places, while the PR withdrew, and vice versa. Such an analysis would have given the opposition at least 20 percent more seats in parliament. Fourth: insufficient work was done in the countryside to make the opposition’s highly advanced programs, particularly that of the PD, understandable. But of all these factors, democracy was dealt its heaviest blow by the majoritarian voting system. Accepting the proportional system, in view of the advantages discussed in several articles in «Republika» and RD, would certainly have given Albania a pluralist parliament. Let us now refer to the article in the newspaper «Bashkimi» — «The electorate in the elections of 31 March», dated 8.4.1991 — which provides several particularly interesting figures that clearly point to avenues and opportunities for manipulation beyond dispute. The flagrant fact is that in one place a deputy is elected by 13,000 voters, while elsewhere it takes 5,000. In other words, the same number of voters in the countryside elects two deputies, while in the city it elects one. Is that what they call a rule? But let us go further. According to this article, 1,956,232 citizens took part in the voting, while 1,949,816 voted; that is, 6,416 fewer ballot papers were found in the ballot boxes?! What strange arithmetic?! It appears that the ballots were taken but not put into the boxes. And was this where the phenomenon of misappropriation appeared? Not to mention the 92,547 invalid votes, etc. Clearly, one must also add the opposition’s own mistakes, resulting from its lack of experience, which the PPSH exploited well, such as: The historical reality is one thing, and rationalizations are another. Within the circumstances that have been created, the PR, like every party, must also carry out its tasks for the future. HY S E N ÇOBANI the country in its rapid and in particular, PD as the strongest party… The Bulgarians, with their should be more realistic. we are not asking [text breaks off]. consolidate, to put forward candidates [text is damaged], point to avenues and opportunities for manipulation beyond dispute. It is flagrant HY S E N ÇOBANI

When the Party of Labour secured an absolute majority of deputies, democrats felt disappointed. We were right, because through the mechanism of the vote this party, which has made the laws for 46 years, once again holds Albania’s fate in its hands. So we had, and still have, monism in parliament, when so much is expected—and more—from it for our mother Albania. Yet some people also offered a ray of hope, thinking that refreshing the ranks of the Party of Labour’s deputies with all those young people would surely bring change. After all, a deputy «fossilized» through entire legislatures and in an almost inherited party leadership cannot have the same mindset as a young person representing generations that truly seek change. And there are quite a few such people among the communists. But that idea seemed to fade when, in response to the objections raised by the Democratic Party deputies about some areas and irregularities on election day, 31 March, the voting mechanism caused those objections merely to be entered in the record! Will the proceedings continue like this? Why are we asking these questions? Because the draft constitution was published on 10 April. By the 15th, when parliament convened, only four days remained to study this manifesto of our present and future. Subtracting the travel day for deputies from distant districts, some of them had only three days for study. Anyway, according to monist practice, when the time available mattered little, as long as specialists presented it as a document approved by their committees, this draft was to be adopted. Once again, an outdated, routine practice—wrong, moreover, for an assembly that is no longer to be a spring-loaded, obedient power that says «Yes» to everything. In this observation we are not even touching on the major differences between this draft and the existing constitution and the first version, because they differ greatly. Nevertheless, it is a constitution, and no haste can be excused in dealing with it. Nor can we be satisfied by saying, «There are many improvements,» when the yardstick should not be yesterday, but today and tomorrow. That is why legitimate debate arises, together with the need for consensus—that reconciliation or agreement which creates the conditions for avoiding mistakes. The Democratic Party deputies, specifically Abdi Ba-Baleta and others, asked that the approval be postponed for ten days, so that we could have a brief dialogue about the draft, followed by discussion and approval in parliament. Some Party of Labour deputies objected and expressed opinions perhaps rooted in that thought ingrained in our minds: «How can we oppose such an approval when it has been sent down from above for approval?»; «How can we vote on the fundamental law of our state when our critical situation cannot wait?» I do not wish, and have no right, to call these people monists, but accepting their wish for immediate approval would have added grist to that mill. We would once again have had an act like those of the past, except that this time the opposition deputies would have opposed the approval. But even that is not enough. It is too little for Albania. That is why, through dialogue (even though it is election season and the deputies feel the weight of work-related tension on their shoulders), the first positive sign of these sons of the Homeland in a pluralist assembly began to take shape. Quite a few people thought: «It seems they do understand that what some are asking for—a few days to study—is for our good, for Albania’s.» I recall Ismail Leshlin and Dritëro Agolli, not to lengthen the list of these communists who feel the heavy burden of responsibility for this approval. This is a victory and, if it proves beneficial—as there is no doubt it will—may we always have such mutual understandings. Cooperation like that shown by the Party of Labour deputy from the district of Shkodër, Shaqir Vukaj, who proposed that the Parliamentary Commission report on the tragic events in Shkodër and summon the leaders of the people of this city and district. The unjustified silence of the Party of Labour was broken, and the mystery surrounding this crime was addressed, after it had initially been put on the wrong track. A parliamentary commission was appointed, and the summons was drafted. Therefore, the people of the district of Shkodër and all of Albania are waiting for next Thursday for these two major events. They are waiting to hear the dialogue, because they want consensus and mutual understanding, which lead more naturally to approval than a vote or victory by a majority of the deputies, especially since this should not be settled by a simple vote. Yes, yes, just like the world we take as our example. Then each deputy, from every group, will be freer to express an opinion without, one way or another, the pressure of the party to which they belong. Let us hope. PETRO DHIMITRI

When a decision is reached that will determine the fate of Yugoslavia, the Albanians will express themselves as a people, even though others deny us the right to do so, declared Ibrahim Rugova, chairman of the Democratic League of Kosovo, at today’s press conference. If citizens are to make a declaration in a referendum, then Albanians will do so too. However, if the nations declare a republic, we will organize our own referendum and decide our own fate. Replying to a question about Serbian nationalism, Rugova said: «We will not give up any part of Kosovo, nor will we accept its division into regions and districts. We recommend that the Serbs do what is best for them and reach an agreement with the Albanians, and we will not allow them to take even a span of Kosovo’s land.»

— A PP deputy supports a PD deputy — As a journalist, I have followed several sessions of the People’s Assembly, but none like this one. The first pluralist parliament. Anxiety, like a contagious disease, circulates both in the gallery and in the balcony. How will this parliament go? There were also remarks like, «We’ll see a real spectacle.» And it really did begin like a spectacle. Comedy, sometimes tragedy, when you see that 30 percent of the benches are empty; many procedures of a pluralist parliament were not to everyone’s liking. The first session passed as it passed. But what about the second? Would the democratic side come or not? They came, they came! We looked around at everyone. It seemed to me a good omen. Hope grew that parliament would function. But the ice remained. Some are caught up in the events in SHKODËR, others are not. What are you doing, fellow deputies? I want to remind you all of one fact about Shkodër: those who fell in Shkodër are Albanians. But I am [unclear] and have no right to speak. As the session went on, anxiety grew: «Good heavens, parliament’s done for; it’s fallen apart.» All the more so when a deputy from the PP said to Sali Berisha: «Two things you raised on election day—have you not kept the bad habit from the rallies?» I didn’t catch this deputy’s name, but he surely left the hall with his ears burning with shame. I want to ask these deputies: What did the people tell you when they sent you here? Was the message perhaps: «Listen, you must crush those democrats, even when they are right…» Not like that, dear deputy. What are you saying—that all the troubles come from the opposition? «The devil take this business,» we said in the gallery. But every bout of anxiety comes to an end. Sometimes it ends sadly, sometimes happily. This time, fortunately for parliament and Albania, things worked out happily. A PP deputy, Ismail Leshli, was the first to break the ice: Bravo to him! — I agree with the proposal of my Democratic Party colleague, Neritan Ceka. A scandal? Absolutely not! It seemed to me that at last the golden key had been found. «What is good is what benefits Albania, regardless of who says it or who does it.» The ice was broken. In the gallery, nearly all the deputies finally understood. It can happen this way too. Stavri Kallço and Dritëro Agolli on one side, Arben Imami and Prèc Zogaj on the other, began to find points of agreement with one another. I am now convinced that Parliament will function. And the session chair, A. Çarçani, showed good sense when, to clarify a delicate issue, he addressed: «Who are you going to consult? Deputy Abdi Baleta! The opposition?! Not at all! The specialist. The person whose word carries weight. Parliament needs diffusion. There are many things at stake. The main thing: Albania!» THANAS QERAMA

Krujë On 19 April, the first conference of the PR branch for the district of Krujë held its proceedings. The conference elected the branch leadership, with Ahmet Hasani as chairman and Mehmet Pasha as secretary. The conference was also attended by Vangjush Gambeta, secretary of the PR Founding Commission. Lushnjë On Friday, 19.4.1991, under the direction of Shpend Sallaku, chairman of the PR branch, an expanded district activists’ meeting was held. It discussed the new tasks arising from the need to expand and increase the Party’s membership in the city of Lushnjë and the villages of its district. In their remarks, Sheme Krasniqi, Milika Rama and Arjan Babo emphasized the work that needs to be done to explain the PR’s position on the situations our country is going through. In the countryside, said those taking part in the discussion, Themel Bellu and Gjinim Dure from Pluku, Vath Hajdari from Hajdaraj, Peti Sota from Divjaka, Isuf Maniko from Karbunara, Bashkim Sulçe from Kolonja, Adriatik Leka from Tërbuf, and others. The text that follows is damaged and partly unreadable: «Shtatari po kërkon për punën që bën dhënë dhe është duke u punuar për të punuar e kuotat që i kanë dhënë dhe dhe ashtu po të kërkohet. Intere-suar për punoje në kooperativë. Kjo nuk është zgjidhje.»

have been without [cut off] per- [cut off] after mono- [cut off] do not ur- [cut off] and it awaits quite social [cut off] that for He zin- [cut off] Ashk- [cut off] test of koda- [cut off] They oha will be, to ra- [cut off] Perikli Perikliu ostanda from Ro- [cut off] si, Medi Hasan- Gora- urmë ra- [cut off] republic and ben- social- Pavar- [text in the left-hand columns is partly cut off and illegible]