Liberal democratic values and dialogue: Kurti's ideological hurdles

In our troubled world, where conflicts and geopolitical tensions often dominate media headlines, dialogue and efforts to achieve peace have become more important than ever. This is especially true of us Albanians, who are dominated by debates related to dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia, and we are concerned that a legally binding final agreement that brings mutual recognition and paves the way for membership in the UN of Kosovo is further than it was a decade ago. Not only have we had missed chances of finalising the process but we have a regress in view of minimising the achievements achieved in Brussels due to tension and boycott in the north.

It should be said here that, in addition to the hegemonist behavior of Belgrade (deserved of other specific writings to be treated), one of the main causes of this tense state of dialogue today is the Kurti government and the back mindset it represents. The negotiations, and the way negotiations are made, are not just the issue of forces reports, of moral superiority, international conjuture or negotiating skills, but also of the formation and ideological conviction that has political leadership. So there's also a deeper dimension, a dimension closely related to ideological beliefs and embracing liberal-democratic values that have peace as a cornerstone. In this case, it can be said that Kurti's autocratic tendencies and his government, as well as sympathy for the totalitarian ideology of Markism he and his party, pose a major obstacle to the progress of dialogue in general and to Kosovo's benefit from the dialogue process in particular. Furthermore, because of its anti-liberal thinking, Kurti does not have dialogue problems only with Serbia, but with all those actors and domestic or external factors that disagree with him or have different positions and interests, which undermines the consolidation of Kosovo institutions and its international position.
In a political system that functions on liberal democracy principles, parliamentary dialogue, achieving the broadness of consensus and the college decision-making in line with the limits of constitutionalism are essential means of finding solutions that respect the interests of all parties involved. Liberal democracy allows for exchange of ideas, meeting different views and finding a common basis for co-operation. It encourages open and free debate, acknowledging that diversity of thought is a force, not a weakness. The close link between democracy and peace has been dealt with early in the field of international relations, which has led to the creation of the theory of Democratic Peace.

They have a completely different approach to dialogue and peace. In these systems, power is centralized into the hands of an individual or a small group of Ottomans, and any critical or opositious form is forcibly suppressed. The dialogue is seen as a threat to their power, and peace is not an objective in itself because these regimes do not accept dialogue as a legitimate tool for resolving conflicts. These despots who refuse to accept basic democratic principles have difficulty engaging in big peace discussions because they lack the willingness, mentality, and essential experience needed for achieving peace.
Here lies the problem with Kurti and Vetevendosje's ideological Marxist orientation that rejected the process of Brussels-brokered technical dialogue 13 years ago, not for a sincere concern for their country's interests, but because they reject the very basis of the democratic value of reaching a compromise through negotiations. As they were against dialogue with Serbia, in its beginning this organisation opposed domestic democratic processes and refused to compete in elections. With violent protests, the Molotov bomb, tear gas and boiling of this political force has hampered domestic political dialogue and has even refused results resulting from the functioning of democratic institutions.

For Kurt, violent protests, as well as changing political regime through revolution, were for years the preferred means, in the meantime that had not yet made use of institutional routes. Because of the ideological rigid outlook, Kurti and the party find it hard to accept that democracy, with its focus on dialogue, compromise and respect for diversity, forms the stable basis of peaceful co-existence between different political parties and between states. Unable to reach consensus and co-operate in diversity Vetevendosje best witnessed it even during short-lived coalition governance with the LDK, where even though they were separated by an MP, Kurti was completely indifferent to partners as if he were the absolute monarch.
Kurti government has also seriously damaged reports with the United States of America that are the most vital supporters of the existence of the state of Kosovo. It has introduced Kosovo into the group of EU-sponsored countries where Russia and Belarus are located and has never frustrated the reports with official Tirana. Besides undermining reports with partners and neighbours, the same problems are faced in domestic policy where the government Kurti has analyzed not only the opposition, but also those of Vetevendosje deputies who have different opinions. It has also been pitied as rarely before with the media, civil society businesses or unions (the most flagrant case has been the inability to negotiate a deal with education unions and policemen). Furthermore, the government Kurti has repeatedly attacked and analysed Kosovo's courts and judicial goal, showing disregard for yet another executor of liberal democracy, which is rule of law.

Despite initially stating that the dialogue would have a 7th priority, in reality the distorted dialogue and the frozen conflict with Serbia has monopolized Kosovo's public life, the government's Mazhorance has not undertaken any essential reform in justice, health, education or other public services, has made no significant investment in infrastructure, energy or mining; it has brought nothing new to the field of art, sports, culture, science or technology. The governance is totally in place of confronting Serbia, and the only things it boasts of is how harsh and uncompromering with Serbs and how stubborn they are being shown with strategic partners that promote dialogue and understanding language. Blocking capital investments is leading to the collapse of the economy, while feelings of uncertainty and lack of hope for the future have led at least 1/10 of Kosovo's population to emigrate since Kurti won the election in 2019.
In the end, Kosovo-challer dialogue- Serbia is not just a question of diplomatic tactics, but it is a symptom of a deeper disease: the government's refusal to embrace liberal-democratic values that are essential to lasting peace. It reflects a deeper ideological confrontation, where autocratic tendencies and lack of democratic experience hinder the achievement of lasting peace. This government, mired in an autocratic mentality and outdated totalitarian ideology, has failed in its main task: to ensure the welfare and progress of Kosovo citizens. Instead, she has chosen to use the conflict with Serbia as a mask for her inability to offer real solutions to the country's many problems.

To move forward, it is essential to acknowledge that real dialogue requires a sincere commitment to democratic values not only from the government but from all over society. It requires a willingness to find common language and reach a deal, even when it requires bitter compromises. Kosovo deserves a government that is willing to work with all relief actors, both inside and abroad, to find sustainable solutions that respect the interests of all by being inspired by liberal-democratic values. Until that happens, the prospect of real and lasting peace in the region will remain a distant dream.