Major Tyrania, Tucqueville lessons for Kosovo crisis

It says: NUREAL ADR

In the spring of 1831, a young French aristocrat, only 25, Alexis de Tocqueville, boarded a ship to America, not to explore the world, but to discover the essence of a new social order. He was accompanied by a lawyer's colleague on a state mission to study American prisons.

But more than innovation in prisons, Tocqueville attracted the American political system and the question: How did the light of Enlightenment, born in Paris's aristocratic salons, find refuge and flourish between the fields of Virginia and the churches of Boston? They found the most suitable ground to take root in America? After traveling far and wide for nine months, Tocqueville wrote not only the official report on prisons but also an extraordinary book that remains a classic for universities: “Democracy in America”.

The main answer to the question posed by him stood not only in the distance from old feudal structures but also in the unique social and moral character of American colonies. It often dominated religious, cultural, or ethnic communities that had emigrated from Europe just to escape the persecution of most, whether from the State Church, the absoluteist monarchs, or colonists who imposed foreign identities and beliefs. The America he saw was like a Noah's ark for the persecuted communities with: English Puritans, persecuted by the Church of England; Quakers and Baptists, oppressed for their doctrinal deviations; French hooligans expelled from the Catholic monarchy; Irish Catholics, discriminated against the British Protestant invaders; Dutch, who fled the Spanish domination and depression during the 80-year-old war; German Lutherans, driven away because of the sectarian conflicts or the absolute crackdown; Jews, who sought refuge from the cruel East Europe.

This rich mosaic of persecuted communities built a society with fresh memories of persecution by the majority. They were familiar with and had experienced the painful weight of intolerance under their skin when most, in the name of morality, nation, or religion, turned into oppressive weapons against the individual and any voice different. Thus, on the basis of American democracy, solid principles of freedom of speech and conscience, individual rights, and minority protection were established as a guarantee to avoid repeating the tyranny that these people had left behind. In this context, Tocqueville, with the keen eye of society observers and the sensitivity of the man looking for the essence beyond the facade, understood the key to American democracy's success and noted that democracy around the world was no longer run by the tyranny of tyrants, but by the tyranny of the majority. Instead of ruling by an absolute sovereign, the potential threat came from the crowd because there was now the possibility that most would assume the role of oppressive power. With the legitimacy of the vote, most can exert pressure on opinion differently, not through violence, but through norms, exclusion and social conformism.

The new Tyrania does not need classical violent expectations; it functions through public opinion and fear of collective stigmatization. That was the essence of Tocqueville's warning: that democracy does not automatically guarantee individual freedom and that any democratic system, regardless of form, carries the potential for abuse if it is not invested in a deep democratic culture and if institutional protection mechanisms are not built against majority power. This is also the most valuable lesson for today's Kosovo: that free democracy can deviate into another form of control; with the face of majority, but with the effects of authoritarianism. So freedom is never safe, even under the flag of democracy. I did all this to point out that Tocqueville's warning is more important than ever for the current crisis. Following the Certificate of the results of the February 9th elections, Kosovo is facing an institutional and constitutional crisis that reflects just this phenomenon: a relative parliamentary majority that is not using power to build functional institutions and represent the interests of all citizens, but to block them and impose authoritarian control on behalf of the majority. This is the tyranny of the majority in action: when the legitimacy won by the vote is used to usurp and block democratic processes, transforming the majority into an oppressive power that undermines pluralism and institutions.

The Constitutional Court's decision represented an effort to restore constitutional discipline and prevent further degradation of democracy. The court no longer left room for political games or propagandistic alibis, but pointed to problems and responsibilities and put a red line on parliamentary arrogance that is holding Kosovo hostage. As for the 30-day term for functionalisation of the Parliament, the Constitutional Court removed any speculation, saying that “within this deadline must be realised all constitutional actions resulting in the constitutional framework of the UN”. So we're already in violation or failure to fulfill constitutional obligations, because it's been 100 days. She recalled that the constitutional session agenda is not a menu that can be changed at will, but an unchanged constitutional structure that guarantees institutional functioning. Also, he stressed that the secret vote cannot be imposed as tactical maneuvers without a constitutional and procedural basis. The decision also determined without equivalation that the Assembly should necessarily be constitutionalised within 30 days of the day of declaring the act of judgment. Moreover, the indictment clarified that the exclusive right to propose the candidate for the Parliament's chairman is also the obligation for the largest parliamentary group to secure the majority through dialogue and compromise.

On the other hand, MPs have the right to vote according to their own free will and can't force an candidacy by the majority. In other words, the court stressed that the majority do not have the privilege of ruling but the obligation to co-operate with others through political compromise as the core of a pluralistic system. Here it is worth making an explanation stop for all those voices that either servile Kurt's power or misunderstood democracy, which require the opposition to submit and vote on Hadzi's candidacy. In a functional democracy, the opposition is neither a decoration to adorn the political scene nor a number that meets parliament's quotas. It is the main advocate of balance and brakes on majority arbitraries. As Tocqueville explains, democracy is not just the vote of a majority that rules without borders, but a system of rules, controls and division of power that curbs any attempt to capture or absolute dominance. When most cross the red line, the opposition has not only the right but also the undeniable task of standing up for institutions to block and denounce. Asking the opposition to stay just passive, or worse, to support the majority's destructive behavior, is like asking that the brakes on the car not work while the car is slipping toward the abyss.

And the saddest part is that there are many ordinary citizens or public persons, who are not part of any political camp but who automatically join the strongest side, prioritizing power over principles and demanding opposition submission to the arrogant will of the majority. This phenomenon is not just a rational choice, but it often stems from deep social and historical reflections, such as the tribalistic tendency to defend itself by cowering within a dominant group, or opportunism that requires security on the winning side for personal gain. This can also be seen as the legacy of historical trauma, where survival has been conditioned by humility or obedience to strong authority, regardless of the justice of the issue. Indeed, nobility and manliness are measured just by being close to the weak, since the strong does not need additional protection. But whatever the origin, this kind of attitude is in stark contrast with the fundamental principles of democracy, which require civic commitment based on values, dialogue and moral responsibility, not in surrender to passive force or conformism. In this way, this reflection alienates individuals from their critical role as defenders of the rule of law and weakens the foundations of pluralism and democratic debate. The situation becomes more serious and complicated, now that the Constitutional Court's verdict (which should be binding guide for each institution) has been flagrantly violated.

Instead of bringing solutions, the ruling majority has chosen to challenge even the country's highest judicial decision, turning the crisis from political to open constitutional challenge. The decision on the Commission for Secret Vote has no constitutional or regulatory basis and undermines the established order of the constitutional session, which cannot be changed arbitraryly. In addition, interrupting the session by the leader is illegal and hinders normal development of the parliamentary process, dragging off the mayor's election and deepening the institutional crisis. What is happening today in Kosovo is not just a parliamentary deadlock, but an alarm leg for all those who believe in democratic order. We are experiencing a dramatic confrontation between two visions of understanding democracy: one that reduces it to parliamentary arithmetics, where many do what they want and the other, what sees democracy as a structure built on rules, control, balance, institutional respect and spirit of co-operation. When a majority extends power through the blockade and challenge of the Constitutional Court, we no longer have a legitimate representation, but with a new and more subtle form of authoritarianism. So this is no time for indifference, nor for conformation.

Kosovo today needs more than ever for conscious voices, for citizens who do not automatically join <x0power”, but who stand up to the principles, the law and fundamental values that Tocqueville saw as the cornerstone of the magic of American democracy. This is the moment to raise voices, protect the rule of law and seek accounts, because history does not forgive indifference and democracy does not defend itself. It needs citizens who do not bow down to the force, but who stand by the right, even when justice does not please crowd or power. /Periscope/