In functional democracies, civil society is more than a critical voice: it is a guarantor of equality in decision-making, a tool for transparency, and a mediating channel between citizens and the state. In Albania, this role is in free fall. What once was limited but existing participation has today transformed into systemic isolation of civic actors, who are excluded not through harsh laws, but through institutional control models and planned silence.
In practice, public participation has been reduced in two ways:
– Formal consultations have turned into procedural rituals, where citizen input does not truly influence the final decision.
– Real decision-making processes take place in an information vacuum, keeping citizens in the dark and without real opportunities to influence.
This is not merely a result of lacking state capacity. It is a consequence of a governing philosophy that views participation as a threat to political stability and control over economic resources.
The State as a Monopoly over Information and Public Debate
The Albanian state has developed a culture of monopolizing information, where strategic data, projects, contracts, and the effects of decisions are kept away from public scrutiny. What is missing is not only transparency, but also the possibility to respond to what is happening.
This form of control operates through:
– the absence of functional public registries,
– non-compliance with legal deadlines for information disclosure,
– selective publication with one-sided media communication.
It has created a state that does not respond, does not explain, and does not reason—but only decides.
In this context, civil society is treated as an “opponent,” not as an institutional partner. Even when it reacts, the government either ignores it or stigmatizes it as an obstacle to development. This way, public discourse is distorted, citizens are detached from the process, and the legitimacy of decisions does not stem from debate but from authority.
The Delegitimization of Participation as a Political Strategy
The exclusion of civil society does not happen solely through non-consultation. It also happens through political discourse that stigmatizes participation. In public rhetoric, protests are labeled “political,” civic platforms “sponsored by interests,” and advocacy groups “uninformed” or “anti-development.”
This systematic delegitimization of participation, starting from the highest political level, has two consequences:
– It discourages citizens from feeling motivated to participate.
– It justifies the exclusion of civil society in the name of “efficiency” or “national priorities.”
Thus, even after 35 years since the 1990s, the citizen is not only excluded from decision-making but also delegitimized as a factor in the country’s development.
Three Steps to Restore Participation as an Institutional Norm
First, we propose the mandatory legalization of citizen consultation and the involvement of CSOs. In Albania, where the law on public notification and consultation has existed since 2014 but remains largely unenforced, the problem is no longer the absence of norms but the absence of enforceability and sanctions for violations. Some partner organizations have tried to promote good practices in civic engagement, but these efforts are often limited to fragmented initiatives, unsupported by local or central political will.
Our proposal, based on the current situation, includes:
– Moving from the “right to be heard” to the “obligation to listen” by introducing clear provisions in laws on urban development, public investments, and state property, making citizen consultation a legal prerequisite for any project.
– Creating a national standard for public consultations, with a unified methodology for all institutions, monitored by an independent structure as a functional oversight body.
Second, we propose the establishment of a permanent citizen oversight mechanism over public decision-making. In an era where technology offers tools for real-time monitoring, analysis, and intervention, the lack of transparency in Albania cannot be justified by lack of resources, but by lack of political will. Various transparency and analysis platforms are good examples, but they are not institutionalized and have no binding effect on institutions.
Our proposal, based on the current situation, includes:
– Establishing a National Transparency Observatory, in cooperation with CSOs and independent media, with a mandate to:
– Publish public contracts in real time,
– Track local and central budgets,
– Report the socio-economic impact of projects on local communities.
– Involving CSOs with certified monitoring status, who participate in the boards of projects with public impact, in accordance with EU practices on government–civil society partnerships in the IPA process.
Third, we propose the reformulation of civic education and the role of media as a critical instrument. In the Albanian reality, where many media outlets depend on public and oligarchic advertising, and where civic education in schools is rudimentary, the citizen is formed more as a consumer of information than as a democratic actor. Civil society becomes a “silent expert” that merely reports but cannot shape public opinion.
Our proposal, based on the current situation, includes:
– Introducing a mandatory module “Education for Active Democracy” in pre-university and university education, focusing on participation, accountability, public budgeting, and the right to information.
– Creating local incubators for citizen journalism and fact-checking, with donor support, to empower communities to report on the issues affecting them.
– Supporting by the Ministry of Education the development of new community media and new forms of digital social activism, which go beyond traditional organizational formats.
If a new architecture for participation is not created, Albania risks not just making unjust decisions, but consolidating a centralized regime with formal participation windows—without substance and without effect.
Albania does not lack CSOs but suffers from a deep mismatch between their existence and their real impact, due to three primary phenomena:
The Oligopolization of the Civil Sector. A few organizations hold disproportionate power through funding and the unconditional support of donors, while many others remain invisible to their radar. Instead of a pluralistic ecosystem of civic representation, Albania has ended up with a model that concentrates resources and institutional access in a small group of organizations—often the same ones participating in official forums, consultations, donor boards, and the media.
This civil oligopoly is:
– gained through personal ties with the government or embassies,
– maintained through internal circulation of grants and experts, and
– rewarded through silence or the relativization of structural issues in the name of “consensus” and “constructive engagement.”
As a result, these organizations Do not:
– challenge public policy but help mildly adjust it to add international credibility.
– organize protests but produce reports that no one reads—while the government cites them in IPA fund applications or EU projects.
Aligned and not representative sicil society
In this climate, the role of organizations is no longer to act as critical filters or intermediaries between citizens and the state but to serve as policy consultants, often involved in processes that:
– Do not originate from the citizen,
– Lack prior public debate, and
– Do not represent the real interest of communities, especially in marginalized areas.
Moreover, organizations that raise their voice against institutional capture or fund misuse are rarely supported by donors, as such reactions are seen as “harsh” and “unproductive.”
This has created a chilling dynamic of self-censorship in the civil sector, where financial survival takes precedence over oversight responsibilities.
The Divide Between Citizens and Civil Society as a Professional Elite
Today, most citizens do not identify with civil society because it:
– Speaks a technical, bureaucratic language,
– Operates within project cycles disconnected from real community concerns, and
– Is distant from the physical and cultural spaces of real participation (neighborhoods, villages, schools, public environments).
Thus, while citizens feel increasingly excluded from politics and the economy, CSOs no longer represent them but become “technical correctors” of decisions already made.
If we do not clearly separate civil society as a civic actor from what has evolved into a grant-structured system aligned with power, then we cannot speak of real participation. What we have today is a distorted ecosystem where criticism is seen as a threat, transparency as a novelty, and the citizen as an obstacle.
This is not a technical issue—it is a deep political and democratic challenge. Because without a decentralized civil society, with equal access to funds, real local representation, and civic courage to speak up, any “consultation” or “inclusion strategy” is just another form of legitimizing centralized and clientelist decision-making.
If we want to restore the real function of civil society in Albania, we must liberate the sector from double control: from the government that uses it as a “consultation façade,” and from its own structures that have turned it into a privileged benefit model in the name of citizens who were never asked.
Civil society—like media and academic institutions—cannot continue to exist on the periphery. It must be at the heart of structural reforms; otherwise, every development program will be merely a simulation for international partners and a deep disappointment for the Albanian citizen.