On a new type of electoral state and a path out of its regimes

Nebi Bardhoshi | nyje.al

This Is Not About Whether the Elections Were Stolen. Today, we are dealing with a system where elections are controlled by the ruling party — the Socialist Party. It claims it has modernized, and that this modernization is why it keeps winning. In reality, it has modernized to steal more effectively and more dangerously, to control the vote illegally and outside institutional frameworks. We are witnessing a well-established and adapted system — a sophisticated model of electoral manipulation. The most recognizable version is Putin’s; other hybrid forms of this model exist within and outside the European Union.

The existence of this model is not the result of just a well-organized party. It’s a party that not only functions efficiently but also uses public resources to maintain power: public sector jobs and salaries, government tenders for firms and oligarchs, the use of private police forces (this point needs strong emphasis), and various other sectors financed by public money. This is a new type of electoral state.

There is also a separate realm: electoral crime, which plays out in two stages — before election day and on election day itself. The cases in Elbasan and the way mandates were won in Tirana, Vorë, and Elbasan are clear examples. These practices are known, widely acknowledged, though constantly relativized by projecting blame onto a supposedly corrupt society as a whole — a convenient way to dodge responsibility.

We define this system as an electoral state: a state captured by a long-governing, hierarchically organized party — one that understands party discipline and social control better than anyone and treats “democracy” as a game for power, to be played by others but never applied to itself or its cadres. Yet that alone is not enough. We are now dealing with a functioning electoral state, where party discipline and human infrastructure are fused with organized crime and extralegal power sources.

What About the Opposition?

In the regimes of an electoral state, where autocracy and oligarchy alternate roles while performing a simulation of democracy, the opposition must represent the democratic aspirations of society. Opposition parties are forced to prove they are democratic, that they defend democratic values, and that they manifest them as institutional and public practices. This obligation flows from the essence of their battle — if they are to have any real chance at change.

But in an electoral state, the opposition faces relentless fragmentation: internal fragmentation within parties and political blocs, because society itself is fragmented and demoralized. Power invests in keeping society disunited and in ensuring the opposition never unites.

Every attempt at unity seems almost impossible. This is especially complicated by the divide between new parties that have never governed and the Democratic Party (PD) or other former ruling parties. New parties feel compelled to speak in anti-establishment language in order to be seen as a genuine alternative, to say things that cannot be said from within or alongside the main opposition party.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party presents itself as a victim of these attacks. At times, this is justified, especially when it is the sole target of attack despite not being in power. But just as often, PD uses this victimhood to deflect any criticism, labeling it as orchestrated or sponsored by the regime. Here, too, the machinery of the electoral state is at work. The ruling party, through media and administrative mechanisms, deepens divisions within the opposition by creating or facilitating platforms of intra-opposition conflict. Even when it doesn’t create these platforms, it allows public debate to exist only between new and traditional alternatives within the opposition camp. In this way, the opposition front is gradually reduced, not necessarily in numbers, but in energy and legitimacy.

What Is the Socialist Party’s Real Victory in These Elections?

It’s not the number of votes — those remain largely the same.
It’s not even the number of seats, although the result was a bitter surprise. That artificially inflated number may come to symbolize the political regime Albania is sinking into.
The real victory is something else: the collapse of the will to resist this regime. And the opposition contributed directly to this collapse.

The Democratic Party’s reaction is exactly what the electoral state anticipates — a state that has even drawn the European Union into its interpretative bubble, indifferent to democracy in Albania. PD responds with repetitive behaviors, as if we were still in the early 1990s. Meanwhile, the new parties focus more on electoral system reform than on denouncing the theft and state control of elections. They are right about the system, and that message is valid, but it is not enough.

Even as the Democratic Party protested electoral theft, it remained dominated by a hardline internal faction that positions itself as the victim while casting others as aggressors. This line, lacking popular support, struggles to expand in society. It lacks broad legitimacy because of its past in both power and opposition, not to mention its limited political language. Worse, its legitimacy has detached almost entirely from democratic values. These leaders inserted themselves into closed lists, securing safe seats — exactly the kind of behavior they should oppose.

Today, the opposition front is fragmented — not just structurally, but in its stance toward the election itself.

Is There a Way Out of This Trap?

There is only one path forward: opposition unity. I know this sounds naive and outdated, but there is no other way.
The opposition must combine internal democratization with a shared political pact.
Resignations from those who lost the elections should be just the first step. Not because they failed to win — critics will say: “Aren’t you admitting the elections were stolen and controlled by an electoral state?” Of course, we are — and we stand by that.
But those who lost have responsibilities — not because they’re uninformed about how this system works, but because they played it safe, securing their seats in parliament. That alone warrants accountability.
More importantly, they must show they believe in democratic values and that they are willing to take responsibility. If not, each party will continue shrinking. Most importantly, the opposition must come together and sign a pact — a new social and political pact focused on restoring democracy.

This pact does not have to be ideological — it simply needs to be an agreement for a fair electoral system.
It should include the formation of a technical government with one goal only: reforming the electoral system.

This reform must rest on three pillars:

1. Guaranteeing free and fair elections;

2. Building a representative and stable electoral framework;

3. Establishing a legal and electoral system that prevents any party or oligarchy from capturing the state and turning it into an electoral state.

Because in Albania, this is precisely what we are living in:
A regime where the game of democracy exists only as opposition theater, controlled by a machine that keeps power tightly in its grip and renders real debate meaningless.