In support of Artan Fuga, Zhupa: Legal changes to give Gjinushi a second term, at the expense of science
Unfortunately, the Academy of Sciences has remained illegal for years because its president was not even a permanent academic and was also the party leader when he was elected president of the academy, flagrantly violating the law. Although not decreed by the president, it seems that he is finishing his mandate, which I have sent with the support of the firms of honorable colleagues, to the Constitutional Court. Because I believe that the legality of such an institution is directly related to reliability and activity in the service of values, and not anti-values.
In response to academic Artan Fuga's public letter, any concerns raised by him are entirely fair and it is unfortunate the state academia is in today and the efforts to stagnate and catch up. I openly support the right of academician Fuga to run for president and it would be an honor for the country to have an academician of his stature at the head of this science institution.
When we thought that this battle would end successfully, a new battle opens for the legitimacy of the academy and for its recapture by the same character. The investigative show Xhadat rightly sought to find a scientific publication for the president, but this was an impossible matter, because it is not there for scientific merit, but for political conjunctures.
The legal changes brought by the two MPs from Koçi-Beqiraj, as I have publicly denounced before, are a continuation of these political conjunctures at the expense of science and are far from being a law in the public interest, but are a custom suit (ad law in person).
Some of the wonders of this draft law that can be clearly distinguished by the sponsor are:
1- The MPs present the achievements of the Academy of Sciences in these 4 years in relation to the law. Can the deputies explain to us how they got these data? Are there official documents with the Academy of Sciences? What are the bodies that have responded to you and why are there only achievements and not shortcomings? Can the deputies explain to us what is the need to present these achievements to us, according to them, when they request a change in the law that is not related to these achievements at all?
2- The MPs say: "there is a need for necessary improvements that have been proposed through this draft law, which does not affect the essence and content of the basic law, but corrects some parasitic provisions." Can the deputies explain to us who came up with this need? The president of the academy, the presidency, or which body? That I don't believe that there is a need for voters in their areas that have no connection with the academy.
Why do they call the provision that explains the election of the president parasitic? Maybe they connect it with the level of the current president's work so far.
3- MP, Ismet Beqiraj has been the relator of this law that seeks to change, defending that its basic principles were precisely to fight control by a person or group, creating stagnation and capture of the institution. While the new changes he brings with his colleague Koçi, do the opposite. They remove the word about mandates in a row, they remove the limiting age, so the above-mentioned need seems to have arisen for Gjinushi for another mandate for himself.
4- The report of the deputies who undertake to change the law is full of spelling mistakes, which undermine the seriousness of a draft law that seeks to regulate the Academy of Sciences.
Për të adresuar në mënyrë institucionale shqetësimet kam kërkuar në komisionin e edukimit që akademiku Fuga dhe akademik të tjerë që kanë ngritur shqetësime publike të dëgjohen në një seancë dëgjimore në komisionin e edukimit.
Që nga tetori 2022, gjithashtu kam kërkuar në të drejtën time kushtetuese një seancë dëgjimore me kryetarin dhe kryesinë e akademisë për veprimtarinë shkencore të akademisë, për veprimtarinë ekonomiko-financiare dhe për projektet kombëtare shkencore. Është rekord i zi se si në 4 vite kryetari i Akademisë së Shkencave nuk ka shkuar asnjëherë në kuvend për t’u pyetur dhe për të raportuar.
The battle for the Academy is not a battle for names, but a battle for science, for history, for dignity and legitimacy. Its political and insidious capture affects the backbone of intellectuals who should be at the forefront of discussions of national, economic, identity, and social issues.