The problem of the Albanian opposition is that it has a common opponent, but still no common project. Everyone calls for Edi Rama’s removal; but the disagreement between them begins when the question is asked: who will lead the change and what will they offer after it?
Why doesn’t it unite?
Because cooperation requires concessions, while confrontation allows each leader to keep their own political territory. Parties that seek the same voters often see each other as the closest competition. Thus, the battle to lead the opposition risks becoming more important than the battle to win the majority.
But there are also real differences that will not disappear with a joint photo: positions on justice, the way parties are run, responsibility for defeats and relations with the figures who have dominated politics. A union that hides these issues for a few days may explode at the first public debate.
Rama benefits politically when his opponents shift attention from the government’s record to their own quarrels. When citizens expect answers on the economy, corruption and public services, but instead hear personal accusations among opposition figures, the alternative loses credibility.
Cooperation does not require parties to dissolve or to stay silent about their differences. It requires a minimal public agreement: a few concrete priorities, clear rules for competing, and a commitment that disagreements will not turn into insults.
The opposition has the right to seek the trust of Albanians. But it must earn it. It cannot ask citizens to entrust it with running the state when its leaders cannot manage a debate among themselves.
The Albanian opposition has a contradiction that is costing it public trust: it describes Edi Rama’s governance as a risk to the country, yet behaves as if the most urgent battle is who will rule within the opposition. If the situation is as serious as its leaders declare, why do they spend most of their energy attacking one another?
The assessment of well-known analyst Ermal Hasimjas, that the lack of a credible opposition alternative also affects the stance of international actors, raises a serious problem. How can you ask for trust to govern the country when you cannot manage a table with your allies, and when international partners say quietly that “we do not have confidence in this opposition”?
The division has a political explanation: opposition parties often compete for the same electorate. Each seeks to take voters from the others, expand its weight and secure its position in any future agreement. But when this rivalry produces more hostility than confrontation with the government, the opposition falls into a trap. It fights for its share within a camp that risks remaining in the minority.
Leaders may win a television debate against one another and, at the same time, lose public trust. Every insult may please militants for a few minutes, but the political damage lasts far longer. Citizens hear accusations of betrayal, bargaining and incompetence, and then see the same people ask for their vote to govern together.
Meanwhile, the government is receiving a political gift. The debate moves away from its responsibilities and focuses on the feud between its opponents. Instead of Rama being held accountable for the record of his rule, the opposition is forced to explain why its leaders cannot tolerate one another.
This does not absolve the government. Responsibility for governing remains with those who wield power. But responsibility for building an alternative belongs to the opposition. No one can carry out this task on its behalf.
A mechanical union is not a solution. A photo with clasped hands does not cover up the lack of a programme, the mistrust and the conflicts over leadership. Political differences should be stated openly. But they can be discussed with arguments and translated into clear agreements on elections, the economy, justice and the way the country is governed.
Albanians have reason to want change, but that does not amount to a blank cheque for the opposition. Dissatisfaction with the government does not automatically turn into trust in its opponents.
As long as opposition leaders see one another as the main obstacle, Rama has an easier time confronting them. The opposition must decide whether it wants to change how the country is governed or simply divide up the hierarchy of the next defeat.