During the electoral campaign, unprecedented in our country to date, the issue of the market economy and the privatization of the economy held a central place in the propaganda of all the parties. As always, during this campaign too, enormous efforts were made for the renewed PP to keep the flag flying—it had been and remained the initiative behind privatization and the development of the economy along this path. Time will show how sincere this commitment is, particularly now that the votes have been counted. But one thing is clear: we are entering the second year of the new economic mechanism, and only the very powerful are making progress along the private path. The web of bureaucracy has become so entangled in this important area too that it leaves no breathing room even for the smallest practical steps in the field of privatization. There was endless talk about draft decrees last year—it took a great deal of effort for Decree No. 7476, “On the authorization and protection of private property and activities,” to be issued on 12 March 1991, at least before the elections. But it was not to be put into effect, even though the decree stipulated that it would enter into force immediately. Another month had to pass before the relevant decision of the Council of Ministers was issued. And that was not the end of the matter. Under this decision, the Council itself, the Ministry of Finance, the State Planning Commission and the ministries would have to issue subordinate legislation and instructions, approve prices, and manipulate financial, fiscal and banking policy during April. The odyssey continues: take care, we must put privatization in order; wait and wait; the economy is in no hurry, and meanwhile, on the planned-economy path, the people are being supplied through unpaid loans and humanitarian aid. Up to this point, the bureaucracy at the top of the pyramid—the big bureaucracy—has been at work. Further down, the bureaucracy of enterprises and executive committees will continue with multiplied obstructive force, bringing together a whole visible and invisible network of personal interests in order to grab “the biggest slice,” skillfully push capable people out of positions of power, and put into ministries and the so-called “Committee for the Reorganization of the Economy”—perhaps created to employ those who will have to be freed from the bloated party apparatus—people who have sufficient financial resources? (unclear reading). Those who are more optimistic may find a way out of this labyrinth. I would say that the bureaucratic aspect is perhaps less harmful—we are used to it and it is not easy to unsettle us. It would be astonishing if things were done as they are in all the countries of the world: the decree would take effect on the appointed date, and implementation would begin. We have time and will learn; after this, let the new pluralist People’s Assembly choose once and for all. It is not the extortionate bureaucracy but the conceptual one that is more dangerous when it comes to the vital issue of privatization. The decree itself has been drafted in such a way as to obstruct and restrain privatization of the economy and push it far down the calendar. We raise this issue because, under the decree, the conditions are not made equal at every point, particularly in relations with state enterprises, even for private businesses. State enterprises are always and in every instance placed in a privileged position. Under these circumstances, no matter how badly a state enterprise performs, it will always emerge victorious in the competitive struggle over “profitability,” thereby causing an initial private initiative to… The decree revealed its sophisticated lock, designed to shut private initiative in a cage and strip it of its freedom, by approving retail prices for the sale of means of production to private individuals. What is the situation in reality? The same mistaken practice, copied from elsewhere, continues to operate outside economic logic as one of a series of chains in the current economic mechanism. Under this practice, enterprises buy means of production at wholesale prices. Now the decree, while preserving these prices for state enterprises, orders that means of production be sold to private businesses at retail prices. This means killing the baby before it has even seen the light of day. In many cases, wholesale and retail prices differ by a ratio of one to two or three. Take, for example, the production of bread from type 75 flour (230-gram rolls). When that bread is produced by a state enterprise, the flour is bought at 3 lek per kilogram; when it is produced by a private baker, the flour will cost 5 lek per kilogram. Furthermore, it is well known that enterprises buy electricity at 0.2 lek per kWh, while a private operator will buy it at 0.5 lek, or 2.5 times more. A private operator will buy petrol from the state at a price three times higher. According to some officials, based on calculations made, costs in the private sector for this production will be about 80 percent higher than in the state sector. Dozens of examples like this could be given for products for which both sectors are supplied with raw materials by the state. The problems facing enterprises will only grow. It is a well-known fact that packaging is invoiced to enterprises at very high prices in order to “influence” their relations. Economically, this measure harms and restrains the privatization mechanism. Many economists and non-economists alike rightly ask: why does the decree address prices, when historically these matters have been handled by other branches of state administration? One might think this was done simply to hinder privatization. I cannot explain it as some kind of haste or inaccuracy in drafting. It was done deliberately; the government bodies have not accepted any initiative on this matter. The view is that state enterprises and private businesses alike should be placed on equal competitive terms regarding the prices charged by the state for the sale of their main raw and auxiliary materials—

Now we can say with complete confidence that we have in our hands the draft Constitution of the Republic of Albania. From this point on, the Albanian state will no longer be called either People’s or Socialist, but simply the Republic of Albania. This name itself suggests that the point of departure for its historical consciousness is 28 November 1912, when the distinguished patriots and democrats, led by the great enlightener and statesman of European stature, Ismail Qemali, proclaimed Albania’s independence and self-government. From its very embryonic beginnings, this independent state had clear democratic and republican features, because its most prominent figures were also genuine democrats. It should be said from the outset that, compared with the 1976 Constitution of the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania, the new draft Constitution is an abolitionist fundamental law, because it liquidates (no longer enshrines) what were called the achievements of the People’s Revolution, thereby sealing fundamental changes in the country’s political and socio-economic order, including a change in the form of government, such as the creation of the office of President of the Republic with legislative and executive powers. These are changes of great historical consequence, which, in a pluralist state, cannot and should not be undertaken by one or two parties and 250 deputies. This is because not all the country’s organized political forces took part in drafting this bill; likewise, not all these forces will participate in its discussion and approval, apart from the deputies of the PP and PD. Only the people bear these responsibilities, and they must express themselves directly, through a referendum, YES or NO to these changes. A popular referendum is absolutely essential in a state with multiparty government, because not all the people are affiliated with parties and, moreover, different parties have their own particular programmes and interests, which are not necessarily fully aligned with the interests of the state and the people as a whole. A referendum is the highest form of expressing the people’s will; it is direct democracy (the highest form of democracy), arising directly from the great principle of popular sovereignty. In a case such as this, as many civilized democratic countries have done and continue to do, a popular referendum is unquestionably required. If the people vote YES to these changes, then it can be said wholeheartedly: This is the path we ourselves, the people, have chosen. A response to such a referendum would not take long. The new draft Constitution can be discussed publicly and in parallel, in the Assembly and outside it, through the press, radio and television, over the course of a month, so that the people may become aware of and familiar with all the changes. I believe this would be the only reasonable and lawful course from every point of view. If we have waited this long, we can wait another month in the name of building something truly secure and lasting. Here are also a few suggestions for revisions. However carefully a draft may appear to have been prepared, there is always room for additions, supplements and changes, even for amendments that may seem minor but often have fundamental significance. To bring out more clearly the legal and political substance of certain provisions, I suggest the following: I think Article 1 would be better formu- (continued on page 3)

PD deputies honor the memory of the martyrs of Shkodër. (Photo ATSH)

Oh God!—we often say to ourselves, as if addressing the heavens, out of habit. But since nothing can be unloaded up there, I have now thought it appropriate to unload it onto the newspaper «REPUBLIKA». Recently, my nerves were frayed in Zagorë, and at the same time I was dealing with a court case [unclear reading]. My mother was called a victim of democracy in court not only by me, but also by another person. Those concerned and the defense counsel for the accused deliberately opened a psychological term there (as has been happening illegally over there lately); anonymous letters and threats were sent to the lady, they raised the matter and filled the house with the blood of the mother-victim. These were kept hidden for generations. Because of this, one night, often, shut inside the house alone, the judicial authorities and they appear to be grieving, with a voice of [unclear reading], she goes along as if she were singing to her nephew and brother. They kill her while struggling with her. Blood immediately, teeth [unclear reading], hair covered in blood and a battered skull, and acid poured over her to erase the traces of the crime (even Shkëshpiri would envy these macabre details). That was the crime. But tragedy often has a comic side. The first investigator arrives and declares that the killing was accidental(?). But what about the council chairman, the Zagorë local official, the customary authority? [unclear reading] I am not in the photograph. It was her brother? [unclear reading] Now we ask the investigator accusingly: Who is responsible for that disinformation which covered up the crime? The noble and just people of the area demanded that the trial be held in the village. Why the court refused, it knows. The trial was under way. The criminal, the accused, was all jokes, relaxed and familiar in the courtroom, as though… (continued on page 3)

—Tell me, what am I to do?—I handed over the cow willingly, and now they have taken it from me by force.— Fertit Çela, a villager from Bitali in Lushnjë, has been made an old man before his time by his troubles. “I must have been unlucky,” he says in a whisper. I say nothing; I only listen to him. “Do you see this photograph?” he says. “I keep it as a memento.” I take the photograph and look at it carefully. It shows a young man holding a cow and a calf by the reins. “That isn’t me in the photograph. It’s my brother, who handed over the cow to the communal herd ten years ago. We were the first to do so.” He shakes his head and looks at me, pain in the light of his eyes. “Back then we handed them over willingly. To express our free will, to show our patriotism. But today? Ah, today they’re making a fool of me. Now they’ve brought out those old documents and the record of the stable, when they took my cow, which was standing under the shed.” “What happened?” He told me the story, but realistically, without embellishment. “No, no, that’s not what happened to me.” “We have the documents here.” And he produces a bundle of papers containing orders from the executive committee, statements from the village council, payment receipts, a lawsuit and other things. “Here is what Fertit told me: ‘There are five of us in the household: my wife and I, both of us medically certified as having disabilities, and our three children. Last year, like everyone else, we asked to get a cow from the state, but they gave me only a small plot [unclear reading]. I paid 1,540 lek. At the time I didn’t have a cow, so I said nothing. This year the cows were redistributed. Some of the people who had received one told me that they were taking it away from me again. I asked the village for help. But what help could they give me? They gave me a sheet signed by 61 people.’” “What happened to that statement?” “Well, I showed it to the chairman and the manager of the cooperative. ‘Brother, I told you my troubles. It’s your turn too,’ and for that he gave me an order? [unclear reading] to take a cow from the Kolo cooperative— (continued on page 2)

On 22 April 1991, the Ministry of Justice approved the request of the Initiating Commission to establish the Social Democratic Party of Albania. The relevant order entered into force immediately and was handed over to the Initiating Commission for the establishment of this party. Correspondent of «Republika»

From 17 to 22 April 1991, the village of Golem had no bread. The villagers are taking their sacks and roaming around the town to feed their children. This situation, together with the bakers’ strike over their economic demands, also resulted in a two-day bread shortage in the town of Lushnjë. AVDULLA LILJA

MEETINGS OF THE PR The day before yesterday, a meeting between representatives of the PD and the PR was held at the Democratic Party headquarters. The chairman of the Republican Party, Sali Berisha, also took part in the meeting. Yesterday, a meeting between representatives of the Republican Party and the Independent Trade Unions was held in the Independent Trade Unions’ hall. The Republican Party secretary, Vanush Gambero, and the chairman of the Governing Council, Gëzim Shahu, also took part. Correspondent of «Republika» ACTIVITIES IN THE DISTRICTS DIBËR In the miners’ town of Bulqizë, on 17 April 1991, a conference to establish the PR branch was held, attended by more than 250 members and supporters. The confer- (continued on page 4)