Author: Emi Postoli Civil society is often considered to be the backbone of democracy, but in Albania, it feels more like a shaky, loose foundation. During its 30 years of democratic consolidation, Albania has failed to ensure the effectiveness of a successful civil society. Despite the high number of activists and NGOs in Albania, their effectiveness is hindered by a range of different historical, institutional, and political factors. Today, political participation and voluntary social action are two areas of civic engagement where Albania is struggling. What holds Albania back from building a strong civil society, and what can be done to overcome these challenges? The communist shadow The country’s long communist legacy is undeniably one of the main causes of its weak civil society nowadays. Civic engagement in Albania was not absent during the communist period, but it was tightly connected to the ideology and interests of the system. Citizens could not initiate any community-driven/voluntarism actions without the involvement of the state, so Albanians did not experience taking a proactive role in society. For instance, volunteerism today may sometimes take a negative connotation simply because of its reputation during communism. Additionally, the regime fostered a culture of spying among citizens leading to fear and mutual suspicion being always present, leading to a weak sense of community and social cohesion.[1] Thus it now appears difficult to build a vibrant civil society based on the experience of a negative collective memory regarding civic cooperation. The gap in implementation Today, while a legal framework exists to include NGOs in decision-making processes, its implementation often falls short. According to a report by the Institute for Democracy and Mediation, the majority of Albanian citizens almost never engage in civil society, and the data indicates that a low trust in the NGOs (compared to media for e.g.) are the main factor contributing to this occurrence.[2] Efforts to bridge the gap between the government and civil society, in terms of institutional mechanisms, have been inconsistent. Although the legal framework does provide space for the inclusion of organizations, proper implementation is usually lacking. Institutional mechanisms for facilitating the linkage and communication between state entities and NGOs are underdeveloped and there is no unified approach on the government’s side. The National Council for Civil Society was legally established in 2015 to facilitate the relation between civil society and the government, but it has produced very little outcome for advancing the dialogue between the two parties.[3] Involvement in the drafting of laws or policies relevant to the sector is almost inexistent. While the government has made efforts to engage with civil society, these initiatives lack practical support and fail to translate into meaningful institutional backing. Influence of politics The engagement of civil society is also heavily politicized at times. The lack of firmly established democratic principles undermines the development of a strong civil society by allowing political affiliations to dictate governmental support for NGOs. Civil society organizations frequently face pressure from political actors to align their activities with partisan agendas, limiting their ability to monitor government actions or hold policymakers accountable.[4] This creates power imbalances that may stop the organisations from achieving their goals. Consequently, civil society cannot perform its monitoring role and hold the government accountable for certain policies or lawmaking. According to UNDP, there is also a lack of transparent criteria with regard to the selection of organizations or associations involved in the decision-making process, allowing for assumptions of favoritism.[5] This dynamic not only weakens CSOs’ independence but also impedes Albania’s democratic progress. It turns out that organizations with more critical stances that do not align with the incumbent’s interests may be disfavored regarding their direct involvement. Decisions taken by government entities with regard to funding and partnership opportunities as well as different regulatory policies for civil society organizations are usually unclear and there is little consultation, leaving dissenting voices marginalized.[6] This kind of politicization directly impacts the sustainability of civil society practices in Albania as political interests are not fixed but short-term, while democratization should be a long-term process. As a result, many Albanians view CSOs as extensions of political parties rather than advocates for genuine social issues, undermining their credibility and public trust.[7] The belief that civil society is politically biased or self-serving makes citizens  reluctant to engage or participate in its initiatives. Lastly, internal factors also impact the effectiveness of civil society in Albania today. In terms of their organisation, civil society organisations sometimes struggle because of issues such as low financial capacities, and lack of professional staff, or limited capacities. [8] In addition, the civil society in Albania appears fragmented whereas the resources and opportunities are usually limited. Financial dependency forces many organizations to rely on funds coming from political entities or politically influenced sources, compromising their civic mission.[9] When external sources and donations appear limited, state support is the only way left for civil society organisations to survive. Is there hope? Despite the challenges faced, civil society has seen some notable efforts in recent years. In 2019, civil society organizations empowered workers to form unions, such as the Unified Miners of Bulqiza Union. Another example is that of 2018-2020 when there was a considerable degree of engagement against the demolition of the National Theatre. However, the case of civic mobilization against the dismantlement of Syria’s chemical weapons in Albania in 2013, remains one of the most successful victories. Protests stemmed from common civic environmentalist concerns engaging dozens of citizens as well as CSOs advocating for the protection of the environment. Initiatives regarding environmental problems have also been very active with regard to the power-plant construction in river banks or national protected parks, where CSOs have provided their legal support, expertise, activist power, and opportunities for media coverage in helping local communities. Yet there has been no shift in the government policy with regard to the construction of the hydro plants of Dragobi and Çeremi. These examples indicate an existing potential for citizen engagement in decision-making in Albania, yet one could argue that the defeats could act as hindrances for future civil society initiatives. Despite the challenges it faces, Albania’s civil society demonstrates the potential for meaningful change, especially with the right support and a more robust institutional framework. Efforts like environmental protests and workers' unionization show that collective action can make a difference. However, to truly strengthen its democracy, Albania must focus on building trust, transparency, and collaboration within its civic space. A strong civil society isn't just an ideal, but it’s essential to ensure that the voices of the people help shape the country's future. [1] Kotoni, M. (2011). CIVIL SOCIETY IN ALBANIA: A CLOSER LOOK AT THE FACTORS WHICH PREVENT ITS STRENGTHENING AND DEVELOPMENT. [2] IDM. “Citizens Engagement in Decision-Making.” Welcome to IDM, 17 Sept. 2020, idmalbania.org/new-projectwidening-the-democratic-space-through-citizens-engagement-in-decision-making/. [3] Agolli, Ariola, et al. Participation of citizens and civil society in decision making, Study on the legal and regulatory framework and practice in Albania. (2013) [4] Florian Cullhaj. (2016). Democratization from Within. Edizioni Nuova Cultura. [5] Albania Progress Report 2022 | United Nations in Albania. (2022). Albania.un.org. https://albania.un.org/en/224031-albania-progress-report-2022 [6] Florian Cullhaj. (2016). Democratization from Within. Edizioni Nuova Cultura. [7] Bino, B., Qirjazi, R., & Dafa, A. (2020). Civil society participation in decision-making in Albania. Institute for Democracy and Mediation for Westminster Foundation for Democracy. [8] Vurmo, G. (2010). CIVIL SOCIETY INDEX FOR ALBANIA IN SEARCH OF CITIZENS & IMPACT Albania World Alliance for Citizen Participation. [9] Bino, B., Qirjazi, R., & Dafa, A. (2020). Civil society participation in decision-making in Albania. Institute for Democracy and Mediation for Westminster Foundation for Democracy.

Author: MSC. Vasiljano Buba Prologue "A political leader should look back to see if the youth are following. If this is not happening, he will not be a political leader for long", said Bernard Baruch. This should serve as a wake-up call for future political leaders in Albania, where youth must become an integral part of their programs, not merely for political consumption, as is often the case, but as one of the main actors in society, serving as the driving force and reflecting the predispositions that the new generation will have in the future social structure. We will endeavor to approach the subject from a philosophical and anthropological perspective, given that the youth and their role in society are not merely a matter of predestined fate. They can shape the course of their lives not simply in a mechanical or mathematical manner, as the Stoics did[1], but as rational beings convinced that each of their steps should be the product of intellect rather than biology. Furthermore, they must be accountable for their actions or inactions in certain situations, and most importantly, they should face the consequences of their choices with dignity and pride. They should be convinced that while the outcome may not be what they desired, the only path to truth is through our mistakes. In our subconscious, when the word "youth" is mentioned, the first qualities that come to mind are dynamism, vitality, and carelessness, among other characteristics. These are not inherently negative, but we believe that these qualities are stigmatized as "bad" precisely because they are evident in a generation raised with the spirit of social caste hermetism and the suppression of Sapere Aude[2] from its inception. In reality, the youth's "battle" is not with the older generation but with themselves. The best embodiment of this idea is found in Socratic philosophy, which posits that the true struggle of a person is against selfishness and ignorance. Socrates believed that the more knowledgeable a person is, the more virtuous they become. He argued that no one is intentionally evil; rather, evil arises from ignorance[3]. This ignorance is the root of the mistaken differences perceived between generations. In reality, there should be no such divide if everyone has their defined role in society. If we examine closely the phrase "stability and change," which at first glance may seem contradictory to some, we find that the binding element between them is the word democracy. We choose democracy not because it guarantees a millennium of peace, but because it is the only dignified force where we can be fully responsible for ourselves[4]. Its fundamental importance lies in the fact that democracy allows us to remove the existing government without shedding blood, this is its most distinctive feature. In the classic antagonism between fossilized stability and the new innovations brought by the youth, countless articles and books have been written. This has often been framed as a "hostility", but this is nothing more than a cynical interpretation and a narrow-minded reading of reality. The experience of the older generation is a valuable asset that must be conserved and cultivated with the utmost respect, for the simple reason that it served as the moral and infrastructural foundation that the youth followed until they reached the maturity of their thought. Demonstrating that generational change does not mean elimination or exclusion, but rather synergy between them, ensures that a society progresses safely on the path of prosperity and maintains a healthy linear continuity. The intellectual and other synergies created by intertwining significant characteristics such as experience with dynamism undoubtedly produce admirable democratic stability. If history has taught us anything, it is that the misuse of the qualities that youth possess has led to wars and immense destruction, including in the civilized world. A retrospective examination of history reveals that before or after every war, the formation of the new generation is prioritized; this is not coincidental, but because in the reformation of society, nothing is more important than education[5]. This is due to the fact that their aforementioned qualities, when intertwined with totalitarian or non-totalitarian ideologies, cement their mentality, preparing them for the new era to come. Based on this fact, we believe that youth are capable of both destroying and building the societies to which they belong. The focus of international organizations such as the UN or the EU should not only be on supporting the youth, which has been done for years, especially in fragile and hybrid democracies like Albania, but the theoretical educational role should also be accompanied by other practical factors to ensure that the youth are immune to extreme nationalism and the ideologies of the far right or left. Aristotle's articulation is very significant; he believed that the citizen should be shaped to adapt to the form of government under which they live. Every government has a particular character that it formed at the beginning and maintains. The character of democracy creates democracy, while the character of oligarchy creates oligarchy[6]. Albania is certainly an example that illustrates this quote. The difficult years of the communist period attempted to forge a new youth without moral or religious backbone. Marx himself tried to shift from metaphysics to history by blaming, among other things, the democratic state and the capitalist system for the world's problems[7]. However, this ultimately resulted in the dramatic fall of non-democratic regimes and the mindset they sought to impose. But why do totalitarian regimes fail, while democracy, despite its issues, remains the best solution? To answer this question, we believe it is necessary to carefully analyze the analogy of the open society thesis that Popper articulates with admirable elegance in his book "The Open Society and Its Enemies". In Popper's articulation, he affirms that so-called closed societies (totalitarian systems in our case) are destined to self-destruct. He illustrates this with the biological state theory[8]. He also argued that in these societies, particularly during the dictatorship in our case, the community is everything and the individual is nothing. The opposite occurs in an open society. Individuality is not merely the opposite of community; if it were, it would be just a desperate yearning for what has been forbidden for years. Rather, it is an instrument for the liberation of knowledge and human capital, making a person not just flesh and bones, but a unique being with the ability to exploit their full potential[9]. This kind of autonomy, unlike the servitude of a closed society, has a positive impulse on the individual. By having the opportunity to choose from a diverse repertoire of options, individuals are naturally more motivated to give their best for themselves, which indirectly benefits the society they belong to[10]. The development of an ontology where a democratic, tolerant, and liberal society is preferred over an authoritarian and totalitarian one is not only a moral and ethical principle[11] but also a vital necessity for the cultural emancipation of the youth. This thesis is inextricably linked to the premise that young people need the necessary spaces and infrastructure to express their ideas and thoughts. They should not be marginalized from the rest of society, especially by political elites, under the pretext of a lack of experience or any other justification. If we aim to build an open society with values, we must first educate the new generation in the spirit of European valorization. As the author himself recounts, the book "The Open Society and Its Enemies" is a theory and defense of democracy against both new and old attacks from its adversaries[12]. We believe that the new attacks are the tendencies we touched on earlier—those movements or ideologies that seek to escalate in the opposite direction with grotesque slogans for absolute freedom or freedom without limits. Great thinkers have denied this principle because of the consequences that such freedom can bring, encapsulated in the phrase: "If I am free to do whatever I want, then I am free to take another's life". This idea has theological roots, reflected in the brilliant expression of Apostle Paul: "Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial". Regarding the former assaults, we contend that beyond endeavors aimed at the revival of neo-Nazi systems and the entirety of the political extreme spectrum, allusions extend to a caste of individuals who perceive the world as fraught with so many dark facets of existence within which we dwell, thereby condemning us to a purported "suffering" in a manner deemed sufficient. We posit, akin to Popper's assertion, that the dissemination of these fallacies constitutes the gravest crime of our era, for it menaces youth and endeavors to deprive them of the right to harbor hope and optimism[13], thereby stimulating, as Hegel articulated, "an anxiety that propels the creature beyond its center"[14]. Consequently, not only does a dearth of stability ensue, but democracy is also liable to converge merely in name, resembling dictatorships in essence, which may bear the label of democracy de jure but fail to embody any of its values de facto. Democracy thrives when society does likewise; this hinges not solely on the socio-economic condition but also on the approach and mindset in confronting the challenges brought forth by globalization. The dream of global unity is not novel[15]; rather, pan-European integration has been and remains a magnificent vision. The EU, which Albania aspires to integrate into, is a unique hybrid entity, neither a federal state like the United States nor an organization like the UN; it stands between them with a universal value system and a diverse array of currents. The European family should not be a utopia; integration is not merely a bureaucratic-economic process among states but much more. It encompasses the cultural, psychological, and religious spheres, among others, and this is preceded by a sound preparation in the mindset of each of us. Epilogue In conclusion, we wish to assert that the more youth are sidelined by politics and the integral societal structure, the deeper the chasm between the various realities will deepen, resulting in inevitable confrontation. Conversely, the opposite will occur, as evidenced in Western countries: if the youth become the vital cells of society, assuming their rightful role and place, this will not only guarantee stability but also strengthen democracy as a means to leave a better legacy than they found for the next generation they will bring forth. Additionally, it should not be forgotten that another benefit of this philosophy is that it would aid in consolidating a democratic tradition sorely lacking in Albania. [1] Maria K. Papathanassiou, "Stoic philosophy and modern cosmology", Hellenistic Philosphy, vol. II, Athinë, 1994, 140. [2] "Have the courage to use your own reason", the motto of the Enlightenment, which derives from Latin. [3] Θεοδόσιος Πελεγρίνης, Οι πέντε εποχές της φιλοσοφίας, (Athens: Πεδίο, 2015), 53. [4] Karl R. Popper, Mendime për Historinë dhe Politikën, (Tiranë: Plejad, 2015), 49. [5] Samuel Enoch Stumpf, Filozofia, Historia & Problemet, (Tiranë, Toena), 395. [6] Aristoteli, Politika, (Tiranë: Plejad, 2003), 204. [7] Chantal Millon-Delsol, Idetë politike në shekullin e XX-të, (Tiranë: Onufri, 2000), 12. [8] Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, (London: Routledge, 1995), 173-4. [9] Ibid, 190. [10] Joseph Raz, The Morality of Freedom, (Oxford University Press, 1986), 204. [11] Gianni Vattimo, Nihilizmi dhe Emancipimi, (Tiranë: Ipls&Dita2000), 31. [12] Popper, Mendime, 79. [13] Ibid, 117. [14] Hans-George Gadamer, Historia e Filozofisë, (Tiranë: Plejad, 2008), 288-289. [15] Anthony D. Smith, Kombet dhe Nacionalizmi në erën Globale, (Tiranë: Dudaj, 2008), 29.