- Declaration of the pluralist commission for the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the liberation of the homeland - At the initiative of the National Committee of Veterans of the Anti-Fascist National Liberation War of the Albanian people, and in cooperation with the Organization of Independent Democratic Veterans, a round-table meeting was held on 18 July with all the parties and associations that genuinely value the monumental struggle waged by our people for national and social liberation against the Nazi-fascist occupiers and their local servants. At the conclusion, a joint declaration was also drafted, signed by: The National Committee the Organization of LANÇ Veterans, the Union of War Veterans of the Albanian People, the Association for the Fallen of the Nation, the Socialist Party of Albania, the Social Democratic Party of Albania, the National Unity Party, the Democratic Alliance Party, the Social-Workers Party, the Right Republican Party, the Republican Alternative Party. Read the full text of the declaration on page 5.

Although the DP speaks in the name of the people, it is exploiting them by adopting a Constitution to extend its own power G. RUÇI: We are happy and optimistic because our assessments regarding the Nano issue proved to be very accurate and matched the statements made by democratic Europe. On Friday, hundreds of citizens from Laç and the surrounding areas held a meeting lasting more than three hours with comrade Gramoz Ruçi, General Secretary of the SP. Socialist Party members and supporters, representatives of other political parties, and non-party citizens took part. Amid calls and applause for the Socialist Party and its chairman Fatos Nano, deputy Ruçi took the floor. At the beginning of his speech he said: Albania has now reached the point of discussing the constitution. This issue was discussed for two days by all forces across the Albanian political spectrum, but unfortunately it was not broadcast by RTV to tell the people the truth. The Albanian Socialist Party and the entire political spectrum, with the exception of the DP, believe that the constitution should first be adopted in parliament, in accordance with the constitutional provisions in force. With this (Continued on page 6)

On Friday, in one of the halls of the «Aleksandër Moisiu» Palace of Culture in the city of Durrës, a meeting was organized with MPs Anastas Angjeli and Shkëlqim Cani in the presence of a selected group of SP supporters. The meeting was declared open by the chairman of the SP branch in the Durrës district, Bar-dhyli Agasi. Next, MP Anastas Angjeli took the floor and addressed several issues concerning the current political and economic situation our country is going through. Turning to the most fundamental problem, which is the subject and adoption of the constitution, he emphasized, among other things: «For more than a year Albania had been waiting for the constitution to be announced. It was brought forward today, but this constitution being presented to (Continued on page 4)

Intellectuals speak: The draft Constitution should be approved by a two-thirds majority, then there can be a popular referendum LLAZAR VERO, journalist A referendum as a concept is right and democratic. But regarding the issue under discussion, I think it is a wrong political action, which bypasses the laws of the existing constitutional package and irrationally bypasses parliament as the only legislative body entitled to make changes and take specific decisions when necessary. The people gave the members of this parliament their mandate and expect it to decide. No one else. I feel optimistic about the action of the parliamentary groups that refused to vote for the law on referendums. Political responsibility toward the present and future of the people unites political forces, regardless of their colors. I think every citizen, intellectual and especially lawyers will seriously work to raise public awareness of what it means to adopt a democratic or undemocratic constitution. The draft Constitution should be discussed and approved by two-thirds of the votes in parliament. This is essential. Then, if parliament decides, it may be put to a popular referendum. Democracy requires seriousness. We must respect the laws currently in force that parliament has approved.

Prof. HAMIR BËQJA In itself, the idea of using a referendum to resolve the problems facing the people is, in principle, an acceptable one. In this particular case, I think the context and circumstances in which this issue is being raised must be carefully considered. I would say that we must guard against even the slightest reduction of the current powers of Parliament, set out in the Constitutional Provisions. There must be no tampering with these provisions and no undermining of the democratic legislation that has been adopted so far. The use of referendums is a practice that may also be introduced in our country, but it requires a democratic culture and a certain level of development among those who take part in a referendum, as well as referendums on issues considered as a whole by the majority, so as to create and achieve [unclear]. Sometimes this may also create difficulties, even contradictions, for the voters themselves.

Dr. R X?P ÇUKO A referendum is a democratic means by which the people decide on an issue and make decisions on important problems that often call for an answer that can be measured by a yes or no. When the issue is the constitution, it is important and can be decided by a yes or no. This is so in the case of a constitution with so many articles, a constitution that cannot be condensed and summed up in a yes or no. Every citizen may have the right to make an intervention or suggestion. The question arises: Where and to whom would they make these, or would a vote ask them to answer only one thing? I express the view that the draft constitution should be discussed in parliament and, after passing through that process, should also be put to a non-partisan vote by means of a referendum. Or there should be a referendum on individual articles on which consensus cannot be reached.

LIMOZ DIZDARI Composer – Merited Artist: Without becoming thoroughly familiar with the Draft Constitution, I cannot comment. I appreciate the President’s desire and good intentions, but I would consider prior discussion of the Draft Constitution in Parliament—also required by the law in force—to be both very appropriate and necessary. Such a discussion in Parliament would also help make the people’s referendum more informed. A wise people respect their lawful representatives, while always knowing that the final word belongs to the people themselves.

FATOS MUÇO International Chess Master On the face of it, adopting the Constitution by referendum, as the President proposes, does not seem to be a bad thing. But since we have laws, and under the existing law the Constitution must first go through Parliament, that is what should happen: the draft Constitution should be approved article by article in Parliament. If there are specific points in Parliament on which the parliamentarians cannot reach consensus, then the people may be asked. I explain the President’s insistence on adopting the Constitution by referendum by the fact that the President, the government and the Democratic Party understand clearly that they cannot achieve one of the Constitution’s aims as they themselves wish through Parliament, because there they cannot secure the two-thirds majority required. By appealing to the people through television propaganda and the other means at their disposal, it is understandable that most people do not clearly understand what they will be voting on, and they may say “yes” or “no” without knowing specifically why. (Continued on page 2)

Docent ISA GORICA I support a referendum, provided Parliament is not bypassed. Bypassing Parliament leads to spontaneity and disorder. Let the Constitution be adopted by referendum, but only after it has been carefully analyzed, discussed and examined in Parliament. In my opinion, this is the best way.

Prof. ZIJA XHOLI The Constitution is what gives a society its external and internal contours. In this sense, one can say that a society’s Constitution determines what that society itself is like. Therefore, the news that the Constitution has been prepared and is expected to be adopted soon can only be welcomed with a feeling of relief and satisfaction. Naturally, both the way the Constitution is to be adopted and its content have sparked heated discussions and polemics, which—whatever the case, they should be in the interest of the Constitution itself. What is certainly most important, and should command our attention, is its content and its fundamental principles, and the concern that our country’s Constitution should be a truly democratic Constitution of a European standard. A nationwide discussion of its articles, which would essentially also be a popular referendum, would make a decisive contribution in this direction. Such a discussion would give it a genuinely popular character; it would make it not the constitution of the commission that drafted it, but the constitution of the entire people. Thus, the Constitution, corrected and supplemented through public discussion, would make Parliament’s work easier; it has also made Parliament’s own work easier, because in this case it has a document that has passed through the sieve of public judgment. On this occasion, I would formulate an idea that never leaves me and follows me at every step: the idea that national unity and unanimity are indispensable on the great issues of the nation. The Constitution is one such major national issue and, for this reason, requires unanimous consensus. I express my belief and hope that the country’s political forces will know how to rise above party interests, concern themselves with the nation’s higher interests, and find the path to consensus and unanimity. It is a truth of life, as old as the world, that division on such essential matters neither allows progress nor brings about prosperity, and that major problems cannot be solved and progress cannot be achieved. These considerations also point the way to democracy.

Dr. JORGI KOTE I do not know why, through certain spectacular actions, it is claimed that “we are discovering America.” Everyone knows that a referendum is a fully-fledged democratic institution for making the most important decisions on fundamental issues of development. As such, it is entirely acceptable in our society too. But one must not forget that this entire process of obtaining a popular “yes” in genuinely democratic societies proceeds through laws and representative bodies, which in our case are the Constitutional Provisions and Parliament—institutions of which President Berisha himself spoke very highly not long ago. Therefore, I would say that the draft Constitution should be submitted to Parliament for discussion and approval. Parliament has both the legal right and the legal duty to do so, and only then is the way democratically opened for a referendum.

Prof. Dr. Hulusi Hako The President’s message was an apologia that seems to have required more effort and preparation than the drafting of the draft Constitution itself. But a constitution is not like paintings or a musical symphony, which require explanations by specialists or art critics in order to be understood. It speaks through its own content, and at most one can discuss the changes made, what is new compared with the previous constitution, and so on. The apologetic exuberance of the message in question gives one pause and makes one wonder: perhaps the vote has hit a sore spot? In the message, for example, we are led to understand that the President has always supported, and continues to support, a parliamentary republic; but when we “look to America and France for ideals of better presidential democracies,” then we lose our bearings, and should not take as our example the best one, which is in Europe (France) and America alike. This is precisely a debatable matter of principle, and I do not believe it is a party whim, nor is it in the interests of the nation as a whole. It is more understandable and acceptable that, on the current stage of our democracy, ... (Continued on page 3)