The party as property, members as an "investment"

2026-04-29 17:43:00, Opinione Ardi Stefa

The party as property, members as an "investment"

"Shut up. Don't object! We invested in you, not you in the party."

It is a sentence that until a few days ago was not said publicly, despite the fact that we all knew that it was being applied, but now we have heard it. And, in its own way, it is a “right” logic, not because it is moral, but because it is functional for power within the party and beyond.
It is a logic that at first glance seems cynical, but is surprisingly stable and with a cold coherence of power. And precisely for this reason, it works.

In this model, the party is no longer a political organism with ideas, principles, and internal debate, but a control mechanism. It doesn't matter what you think, but how much you believe. It doesn't matter what you represent, but how useful you are to the leader. Investment is not made on ideas, but on loyalty.

It has become a structure where investment is not measured by intellectual contributions or civic engagement, but by blind loyalty and willingness to align. Those who obey are promoted. Those who think are excluded. Those who dare to oppose are declared enemies.

And when the investment is like that, the "dividend" is silently sought.

This is why the logic of leaders is, in its own way, “right”. Because in a system built on control and not on merit, a critical voice is a danger, not a value. A member of parliament who thinks differently is not an asset, but a problem. A figure who has integrity is not an advantage, but a threat to a hierarchy built on obedience.

Therefore, in this logic, the leaders of Albanian political parties are not wrong. They are simply defending the model they have built themselves. A model where the party is private property and people are depreciable capital.

And here the essential question arises: should it be so?

No! Absolutely not! Because otherwise there is no politics, but administration of interests.

A party that imposes silence does not seek stability, but submission. A party that excludes dissenting opinion does not grow stronger, but rots from within.
How many individuals are there today in the SP and DP who hold positions with no connection to meritocracy?
How many of them have built a political profile through ideas, and not through servility?
How many of them are there because they have something to say and not because they know how to not speak?
How many of them have ideas, and how many of them only have convictions?
How many are there to represent the citizens, and how many to not annoy the mayor?

The answer does not require much analysis, it is enough to look at the level of public debate and the intellectual vacuum that has invaded politics.

Political parties today are no longer political groups. They are associations of interests. They are not bound by a common vision, but by a silent contract: I protect you, you obey me. It is no longer a relationship of representation, but a relationship of dependence.

And when this becomes the norm, then democracy does not exist, because this logic does not only harm those who remain silent, but an entire society, which remains without an alternative, without trust and without hope. Because when the parties de facto and de jure become sh.pk, the citizen is left out of the game. Then the “logic” of the mayors regarding “investment” is right for them.

And perhaps this is the greatest investment that has been made in this protracted transition: not in individuals, but in the destruction of politics itself.