An analysis of the degradation of citizen participation in decision-making and the transformation of governance in Albania
In functioning democracies, civil society is more than just a critical voice: it is a guarantee of equality in decision-making, a tool for transparency, and a bridge between citizens and the state. In Albania, this role has been in free fall. What was once limited but existent participation has today been transformed into the systematic isolation of civic actors—excluded not through repressive laws, but via a model of institutional control and planned silence.
In practice, public participation has been diminished in two ways:
- Formal consultations have become procedural rituals where citizens’ input has no real influence on final decisions.
- Real decision-making processes unfold in an information vacuum, keeping citizens in the dark and without genuine means to influence outcomes.
This is not simply the result of weak state capacity. It is the outcome of a governing philosophy that sees participation as a threat to political stability and control over economic resources.
The state as monopoly over information and public debate
The Albanian state has cultivated a culture of monopolizing information—where strategic data, projects, contracts, and the effects of decisions are kept away from the public eye. What is lacking is not just transparency, but also the ability to respond meaningfully to what is happening.
This form of control operates through:
- the absence of functional public registries,
- non-compliance with legal deadlines for providing information,
- selective publication and one-sided media communication.
The result is a state that does not respond, does not explain, and does not justify—it 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. Thus, public discourse is distorted, citizens are alienated from the process, and the legitimacy of decisions stems not from debate, but from authority.
Delegitimizing participation as a political strategy
The exclusion of civil society does not happen solely through lack of consultation. It also occurs through political rhetoric that stigmatizes participation. In public discourse, protests are labeled “political,” civic platforms “sponsored by interests,” and pressure groups “misinformed” or “anti-development.”
This systematic delegitimization of participation, beginning at the highest levels of politics, has two consequences:
- It discourages citizens from feeling motivated to engage in the process.
- It justifies the exclusion of civil society in the name of “efficiency” or “national priorities.”
Thus, even 35 years after the fall of communism, citizens are not only excluded from decision-making—they are delegitimized as actors in the country’s development.
Three steps to restore participation as an institutional norm
(1) Legal mandate for civic consultation and CSO involvement
No strategic project should be approved without a structured, monitored, and mandatory public consultation process—with fixed deadlines, balanced representation, and publication of received comments. Enough with symbolic “town hall” meetings.
Although Albania has had a legal framework for public notification and consultation since 2014, it remains largely unenforced. The issue is no longer the absence of norms but the lack of enforcement mechanisms and penalties.
Our proposal, based on the current reality, includes:
- Shifting from the “right to be heard” to the “obligation to listen,” introducing clear legal provisions in laws on urban development, public investment, and state property that make civic consultation a legal condition for any project.
- Establishing a national standard for public consultations, with a common methodology for all institutions, monitored by an independent oversight body.
(2) Establishing a permanent mechanism for civic oversight of public decision-making
In an era where technology offers tools for real-time monitoring and analysis, Albania’s lack of transparency cannot be justified by limited resources—it stems from a lack of political will. Various transparency and analysis platforms exist but are not institutionalized or binding for public authorities.
Our proposal includes:
- Creating a National Observatory for Transparency, in partnership with CSOs and independent media, with the 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 in project boards with public impact, aligned with EU practices for civil society–government partnerships under IPA programs.
(3) Reframing civic education and the role of media as a critical instrument
In Albania, where many media outlets depend on public and oligarchic advertising, and where civic education is rudimentary, the citizen is shaped more as a consumer of information than as a democratic actor. Civil society becomes a “silent expert” that reports but cannot shape public opinion.
Our proposal includes:
- Introducing a mandatory module on “Education for Active Democracy” in pre-university and university curricula, focused on participation, accountability, public budgeting, and information rights.
- Creating local incubators for citizen journalism and fact-checking, supported by donors, to empower communities to report directly on local issues.
- Supporting the Ministry of Education in developing community media and digital civic activism, moving beyond traditional forms of civic organization.
Unless a new architecture for participation is created, Albania does not merely risk making unjust decisions—it risks consolidating a centralized regime with formal “windows” of participation, but no substance or impact.
Albania does not lack CSOs – It lacks impact and accountability
There is a stark mismatch between the existence of civil society organizations and their real influence, due to three primary dynamics:
Civil society oligopoly and donor-captured structures
Rather than a plural ecosystem of citizen representation, Albania has ended up with a model of resource concentration and institutional access limited to a small group of organizations—often the same ones involved in official forums, consultations, donor boards, and media appearances.
This civil oligopoly:
- Is built on personal ties to government or embassies,
- Is maintained through the internal circulation of grants and experts,
- Is rewarded through silence or issue-softening in the name of “consensus” and “constructive engagement.”
As a result, these organizations:
- Do not contest public policy but assist in soft-modifying it to boost international credibility.
- Do not organize protests but produce unread reports, which the government then cites in EU funding applications.
Aligned, non-representative civil societyIn this environment, CSOs no longer act as critical filters or citizen intermediaries, but as policy consultants, often involved in:
- processes not initiated by citizens,
- projects without prior public debate,
- and initiatives that do not reflect real community needs—especially in marginalized areas.
Moreover, organizations that speak out against institutional capture or fund mismanagement rarely receive donor support, as such reactions are seen as “too harsh” or “unproductive.” This has created a climate of self-censorship, where financial survival is prioritized over the watchdog role.
Disconnect between citizens and the ‘professionalized’ civil societyMost citizens today do not identify with civil society because the latter:
- speaks a technical, bureaucratic language,
- lives within project cycles detached from everyday struggles,
- and remains absent from real participation spaces—neighborhoods, villages, schools, public venues.
Thus, while citizens feel increasingly excluded from politics and the economy, CSOs no longer represent them but act as technical adjusters of already-made decisions.
Toward a democratic reclaiming of civil society
Unless we clearly distinguish between civil society as a citizen actor and that which has evolved into a grant-based structure aligned with power, we cannot speak of genuine participation. What we have today is a distorted ecosystem where criticism is treated as a threat, transparency as novelty, and the citizen as an obstacle.
This is not a technical issue—it is a deep political and democratic challenge. Without a decentralized civil society, with equal access to funding, real local representation, and civic courage, every “consultation” or “participation strategy” remains just a way to legitimize centralized, clientelist decision-making.
If we want to restore the true role of civil society in Albania, we must liberate it from double control: from a government that uses it as a “consultation facade,” and from internal structures that have turned it into a privileged model of representation in the name of citizens who were never asked.
Civil society—like media and academia—cannot remain in the periphery. It must be placed at the heart of structural reforms. Otherwise, every development program will remain merely a performance for international partners and a profound disappointment for the Albanian citizen.