The MP and the electorate, when is the vote and trust betrayed?

2024-04-13 09:08:00, Opinione Ardi Stefa

Some time ago, I debated with some analysts regarding the attitude of the deputies of Reestablishment, then also of the deputies who supported Gazment Bardhin, an attitude which they called a political action. Like them, I also considered the "political action" unacceptable, especially for the message, which was conveyed to the moderate part of the people with scenes of violence, verbal and physical, overturned chairs, whistles, noisemakers and flares! And, of course, I considered unacceptable the abnormal functioning of the Assembly with the laws being approved in a few minutes and with an extremely high budget of 2024, which passed in 8 minutes.

The same debate and discussion was repeated a few weeks ago when the whistleblowers, chair-turners and flamethrowers switched from immense hatred to unconditional love and united votes with the ruling party in the name of "political peace" and abandoned the "revolution," which never lit up, seeing for several times the grotesque characters of an absurd political theater to insult the intelligence of Albanians with the pretense of political production.

But what is the nature of the deputy's mandate, which was given to him by the electorate by vote? How is it fulfilled? To answer this question, it should be borne in mind that, according to the Constitution, deputies decide with a free conscience what serves the nation better and have unlimited right to think, act and vote.

Our constitution states that Albania is a parliamentary republic. In contrast to direct democracy, the people do not exercise power directly, but through their representatives. Citizens elect deputies in elections and mandate them to represent them for four years.

What mandate is this, according to the Constitution? Does it mean that the deputy must follow specific orders from the voters who elected him, the orders of his party, or is he free to judge for himself what serves the public interest best? Can the party or the voters remove the mandate of the deputy if they judge that the one they elected is not implementing their program, orders or wishes?

According to our Constitution, deputies represent the nation as a whole, therefore they do not represent special interests, such as the interest of the district in which they were elected, the party with whose logo they were also elected, or any particular social group!

So even with the Constitution, it cannot be determined that they do not represent a certain group of voters, even if they had promised to do so during the pre-election period.

Deputies decide with conscience what best serves the nation and have unlimited right of opinion and vote ("Deputies represent the people and are not bound by any binding mandate!" - article 70, paragraph 1 of the Constitution). Our constitution does not provide for the restriction of this freedom either by the party to which the deputy belongs, or by the voters who voted for him.

Moreover, neither his party nor the voters can take away his parliamentary mandate. Our constitution does not provide for the possibility of removing a deputy by the voters, nor does it give parties the power to remove from Parliament deputies who do not agree with the party line and replace them with others. Resignation from the parliamentary function is the exclusive right of the deputy (Article 71 par. 2/a, b, c, ç, d and dh of the Constitution). This rule is the most basic expression and guarantee of the so-called "free mandate" of deputies as representatives of the nation.

This means that our Constitution, although it expressly recognizes the role and importance of parties in the organization of political action and the parliamentary process, gives the MP the freedom to judge and vote contrary to the party line. Which means that the deputy can change the positions he expressed in the pre-election period and adapt them to the developments, without the need for this to reflect the positions of the voters who voted for him or even the program of the party with which he has ran and won.

The foundation of our state is popular sovereignty (Article 2 par. 1 of the Constitution). However, according to the Constitution, the voter exercises sovereignty, not by predetermining and controlling the specific positions that will be expressed by the deputy he chooses, but by giving him confidence and confirming or removing this confidence in the next elections. Unlike representation in private matters, in political representation, the judgment of public interest is essentially formed during consultations and negotiations in the public sphere and in the Assembly.

This freedom does not mean that the deputy is not subject to control for his opinion and vote. The deputy seeks the vote of the electorate by presenting a certain context, both personally, with his programmatic position, and through membership in a certain party, which represents certain political positions and principles.

Exceeding this framework cannot, according to our Constitution, lead to the loss of the deputy's mandate, but it does not exclude political consequences. Voters express their disapproval by contacting the MP, individually or organized, and ultimately by voting in the next election. At the party level, the deputy may not be approved by the political faction to which he has chosen to belong and eventually be expelled from its ranks in accordance with internal rules.

So when does the deputy betray the trust and vote of the electorate? Of course, when article 71 paragraph 2 is violated. But, despite the fact that according to article 73, paragraph 1 (The deputy is not responsible for the opinions expressed in the Assembly and the votes given by him in the exercise of his function.), there is also a moral penalty, apart from the legal one. (This provision does not apply in the case of defamation.) (Same law, paragraph 1).

But when the deputy violates the trust of the electorate for his narrow political and economic interest, for a safe place in the parliament, is it not called treason?

The verbal and physical violence we see in Parliament, the abusive language, the lack of real debate, replaced by shouting, insults and violence affects ordinary people. Despite the fact that, in fact, their language is a "big theater". They make jokes, swear, insult, to show the public that they are capable, influencing people with low and below-average culture and education, party soldiers...

When there is no debate, which not only divides and identifies the positions of political parties, distinguishes their programs, but also affects the creation of a civic atmosphere, in which the conflicting views of political parties do not influence the irritation of the social climate", then it is not betrayed the vote and trust of the electorate?/ CNA