Written by: Nehat Hyseni

The Republic of Kosovo is facing one of the most serious moments of erosion of its institutional culture since independence. The current crisis is no longer simply a dispute between political parties, nor an ordinary parliamentary debate. It is increasingly becoming a test of respect for the Constitution, the authority of state institutions, and the very foundations of democratic governance.

Following the elections of 7 June 2026, the newly elected Assembly was bound by a constitutional deadline for its constitution. According to the Constitutional Court’s interpretation, this process had to be completed within 30 days; the deadline expired on 7 August.

This raises a fundamental question: Can a political majority claim a governing mandate if it does not respect the constitutional procedures that make the functioning of institutions possible?

The answer should be clear: the electoral mandate is not a license to interpret the Constitution according to the political interests of the moment.

THE CONSTITUTION IS ABOVE THE PARTY

Albin Kurti and the Vetëvendosje Movement came first in the June 7, 2026 elections, winning 53 seats, but not the 61 seats needed for a parliamentary majority that would enable the formation of a stable one-party government and the election of the President, which requires 80 votes.

This result gives the winner of the election a strong political mandate to attempt to form institutions, but it does not give him unlimited authority to rewrite the rules and interpret the Constitution of the Republic according to party preferences.

In a democracy, there is a fundamental difference between the electoral will and the constitutional order. The vote determines political representation; the constitution determines how that power is exercised.

Therefore, any violation of constitutional deadlines, any institutional blockade, and any attempt to replace constitutional norms with political opportunism must be treated with the utmost seriousness.

This is not a matter of Albin Kurti against the opposition. It is a matter of the Republic against a culture of institutional paralysis!

In these circumstances, the responsibility of state leaders becomes crucial. The incumbent Prime Minister, the acting President, and all members of parliament are not just party representatives; they are guardians of the constitutional order.

Therefore, criticism of Albin Kurti should not be understood as personal, but as criticism of any political action that risks placing party interest above constitutional norms.

At the same time, this responsibility does not belong only to the ruling party. The opposition also has an equal obligation not to turn boycotts, procedural blockages, or political non-cooperation into permanent means of institutional paralysis.

The Constitution cannot be a weapon of the majority against the minority, nor a shield of the minority against the majority. It must remain an equal and binding framework for all.

Against this background, the incident of August 8, 2026 in the Assembly, when MP Time Kadrijaj threw eggs at Albin Kurti during the constitutive session after the expiration of the constitutional term, constitutes another alarming signal of the degradation of political culture.

Political opposition should be expressed through arguments, votes, procedures, parliamentary questions, motions, and legal mechanisms — not through symbolic acts of obstruction like throwing eggs.

THE REPUBLIC CANNOT BE HOLDEN

HOSTAGE OF NO PARTY

What is happening in Kosovo should serve as a warning to the entire political spectrum.

A party that wins the elections has the right to govern, but it also has the obligation to respect institutions, the opposition, and the Constitution.

The opposition has the right to challenge the government, but not to block the functioning of the Republic.

This is the essential difference between democratic competition and the struggle for power at all costs!

Kosovo cannot afford repeated institutional crises, because the consequences are not only borne by politicians. They are borne by citizens, the economy, public administration, businesses, young people, and the country’s international credibility.

The European Union has also emphasized that, while the Constitutional Court can help resolve disputes, it cannot replace the responsibility of political leaders to reach solutions through dialogue and compromise.

Therefore, Kosovo needs a minimum political consensus:

The Constitution over the party!

The Republic over the leader!

Public interest over electoral interest!

This does not require that parties think alike. On the contrary, democracy exists precisely because they think differently.

But they must agree on a fundamental principle: the rules of the game cannot change with every election result.

If the winner of the election interprets the Constitution in his favor, he weakens the Republic.

And if citizens lose faith that institutions function according to stable rules, the damage goes far beyond a parliamentary crisis.

CONCLUSION

Kosovo does not need new clashes between political leaders. It needs a new political culture.

A culture in which election winners respect constitutional limits on power.

A culture in which the opposition challenges the government vigorously, but through institutional means.

A culture in which MPs do not replace arguments with eggs — or with tear gas, noise, whistles, and similar forms of obstruction, as the LVV itself once did in opposition.

Above all, Kosovo needs a culture in which the Constitution is not interpreted according to the interests of the political moment, but is respected as the fundamental contract of the state.

Because the Republic of Kosovo is bigger than any leader, bigger than any party, and more important than any political mandate.

And for this very reason, the Constitution must remain the final boundary that no one has the right to cross!

Presevo, August 9, 2026