THE SOCIALIST PARTY AFTER THE ELECTIONS IN A PLURALIST SOCIETY
REFLECTIONS
THE SOCIALIST PARTY AFTER THE ELECTIONS
IN A PLURALIST SOCIETY
By doc. Zef Mazi
Our daily newspaper’s editorial on Monday rightly and appropriately raised the issue of the real transformation and reform of the Socialist Party into a political force capable of and worthy of playing an active role in Albania’s pluralist society. This is a major issue for the PSSh and for its future. It is also an important issue for our entire country, for the present and future of the pluralist and democratic process, especially in the conditions of the PD’s victory in the 22 March elections and the defeated party’s real possibility of forming the new government. Since this problem of the PSSh at this stage goes beyond the character of a merely internal matter for it, but in the broadest sense affects the present and the future of the country, I believe it calls for reflection not only within the forums of the PSSh, but also in the broader public opinion of our society. The reflection I present here is not made simply in the interests of the Socialist Party, but in the interests of democracy and political pluralism in Albania.
I did not comment on this issue immediately after the elections. I avoided any public statement in order to allow a calm reflection independent of the shock of the vote. Now, several days after the elections, one can calmly say that the PSSh emerged from the elections as a defeated force, but not a destroyed one; hit, but not wiped out. Its defeat is severe and has deep consequences, but it would not be realistic not to see that it still remained a major political force, with a broad social base and a substantial vote. The extent of this defeat and the possibilities of its political survival must be seen realistically, without rhetoric and without illusions.
According to the information available so far, in the new Parliament the Socialist Party will have around 38 percent of the deputies. That is not little. It is a number that gives it real weight as an opposition. Moreover, in many areas of the country it has preserved structures, ties and social influence. Under these conditions, the task is not to mourn the loss, but to understand it and draw political, organizational and moral conclusions.
There are many who think that the PSSh’s defeat came simply because it lost power and not because it had lost trust. That would be a poor analysis. The trust of a large part of the people was broken not only by the legacy of the PPSH, but also by the way in which the PSSh failed to convince people that it was ready to clearly and unambiguously break with the past, to acknowledge its own responsibilities, to give up the arrogance of the old structures, to free itself from bureaucracy and the mentality of domination, and to offer a convincing program of rapid, concrete and honest reforms.
In this sense, the electoral defeat should serve as a historic chance for transformation. If the PSSh uses this moment to truly reform itself, to open itself to different thinking, to free debate, to modern social-democratic values, it can remain necessary in the country’s political life. If not, it risks remaining hostage to itself, to the past and to the mechanisms that have discredited it.
One fundamental problem is the relationship with power. For a long time, the party structure and the state structure have been intertwined. This created serious distortions. In a pluralist society, the party can no longer be the state, nor the state the party. This truth must be accepted not only formally, but in political culture, in the way forums function, in the selection of leaders, in relations with the administration, with trade unions, and with the media.
The PSSh must learn how to be an opposition. Opposition is neither sabotage, nor revenge, nor demagogy. Democratic opposition is public oversight, a political alternative, defense of the citizen’s interest, reasoned criticism, and readiness to assume governing responsibility when the vote requires it. If the PSSh knows how to play this role, it will serve not only itself, but also the consolidation of the pluralist system.
Naturally, reform is not made through declarations. It requires new people, a new mindset, a clear program, sincere distancing from old practices, transparency and public accountability. It requires that critical thought not be stifled within the party, that those who speak openly not be pushed aside, and that new figures not be kept as decoration while real decision-making remains in old hands.
The time has come for the Socialist Party to clearly define its identity on the democratic European left. This means a market economy with social responsibility, the rule of law, political freedom, fair elections, respect for property, protection for weaker social groups, European integration, and a culture of democratic compromise. Any prolonged ambiguity on this point would feed society’s mistrust.
Finally, we must not forget that a good part of its electorate did not vote out of nostalgia, but out of insecurity, fear of the unknown, and the absence of clear alternatives in its own social environment. This increases the Socialist Party’s moral responsibility not to keep these people hostage to the past, but to help them orient themselves toward a modern, European and democratic left.
These days call for calm, responsibility and the courage to face the truth. The sooner the Socialist Party does this, the better it will be for itself and for Albania.
(Continued on page 3)