Opinion

To misinform by "judging"

To misinform by "judging"

By Endri Kajsiu /

For days the public is being disturbed by various news that cast doubt on whether the political parties in the country are changing or not changing the electoral system; are raising or lowering the electoral threshold, opening or closing the lists of candidates for MPs. In this news market, - filled with legal or amateur terms, some Albanians according to their appetite and some found in the local market, - the dilemma is great, the questions are many: what is happening with my vote? if I vote will my vote be a contribution to democracy, to the rule of law? , will my vote go to the party or to the candidate I want?

I myself do not have time to read to form an opinion nor to follow barren debates. But I can't wait - in addition to those who have opinions about viruses, global economic systems and conspiracy theories invented by the recent crises we are experiencing - to be enlightened by a professional in the field who can convincingly explain to me what is happening, what will happen to my vote. I notice that I am not the only one interested. I find in the media up and down, a personal status of a professional, even of a former judge, that from the CV should shed a clear light on my dilemmas. But what do you want! I was disappointed again. He was actually clarifying, not me, but the politicians for tomorrow's meeting of the election council. However,

He tells us that the threshold can be accepted? What threshold? is my question that continues to remain unanswered. I follow in discussions with professionals who do not shout but have the honesty to explain. In the face of my disappointment, they explain to me that the case against Turkey, which refers to a specific case where it was tried whether or not the 10% electoral threshold applied in Turkey violated rights, is mentioned truncated by the former judge. The truth is that the Strasbourg Court finally stated that the 10% threshold does not violate the right to vote. Today, Albania has a regional threshold of 3%. While in the project that is currently being discussed, as I understand it, it is proposed to have a national election threshold, but this threshold does not have to be above 5% (as have many other states), because this will has been clearly and publicly expressed by the parliamentary legislative majority. And the reference that the former judge makes to the Turkish case is not only irrelevant to what is being discussed in Albania but, worse, it leads to wrong conclusions.

To my concern as a citizen who does not have the time and means to create an opinion on the democratic landscape in the country, is added the disappointment of professionals from their colleague who uses his personal profile on social networks for misinformation and "judging" quoted in a way truncated such an important issue of a democracy as the right to vote. Professional lawyers, although without political ambition, explained to me that, in the case of Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey, 2008, to which the former judge refers, the ECtHR makes it clear that states have freedom in choosing electoral systems even when setting a double threshold. of known thresholds in other European countries, as was the case of Turkey of 10%. After all these almost professional discussions, curiosity pushed me to read that decision myself. Now then, as the Turkish authorities had claimed in court that any negative effect of a high threshold, different from other countries, could be remedied by corrective mechanisms including coalitions or any strategy to reduce its impact including procedural guarantees, the ECHR requested not to conclude that this threshold in itself constituted a violation of the right to vote. The Strasbourg court confirms the wide margin of appreciation that states have in setting electoral systems, it also states that Turkey, despite the very high threshold, had the opportunity to balance the negative effects that a high electoral threshold could bring. could be remedied with corrective mechanisms including coalitions or any strategy to reduce its impact including procedural guarantees, requiring the ECtHR not to conclude that this threshold in itself constituted a violation of the right to vote. The Strasbourg court confirms the wide margin of appreciation that states have in setting electoral systems, it also states that Turkey, despite the very high threshold, had the opportunity to balance the negative effects that a high electoral threshold could bring. could be remedied with corrective mechanisms including coalitions or any strategy to reduce its impact including procedural guarantees, requiring the ECtHR not to conclude that this threshold in itself constituted a violation of the right to vote. The Strasbourg court confirms the wide margin of appreciation that states have in setting electoral systems, it also states that Turkey, despite the very high threshold, had the opportunity to balance the negative effects that a high electoral threshold could bring.

To ask the Albanian legislator, who has not set the threshold measure (which as I understand it is discussed today from 0 to 5%), to condition the threshold, although low, with appropriate protection mechanisms (with pre-election coalitions) for a high threshold, it is ridiculously minimal. It's so readable at the end of the reasoning that even non-professionals understand it. I keep wondering - but this time I go beyond the electoral system and our politicians - why a high-level professional like the former judge adds to my confusion by misinforming me, quoting phrases or decisions out of context, but especially by “running ”Wrong our decision makers. This should not be the role of any expert, much less of professionals who are also public figures.