By Evarist Beqiri
The modern state needs strong intelligence services. But history teaches us an equally important truth: the danger to democracy does not come only from a weak state. The danger comes from an uncontrolled state. The way a state organizes its intelligence services reveals not only the level of national security, but also the quality of its democracy.
History teaches us that the strengthening of security institutions without proportional mechanisms of democratic control always creates a risk to the constitutional balance. A modern intelligence service is not measured only by the capacity to collect information, but also by the state's ability to supervise it in a legal and democratic manner.
The strength of intelligence services is not measured only by protecting secrets. The strength is measured by the way it protects citizens. The strength is measured by the level of trust citizens have in the service.
Trust is not given by law. It is earned over time. With deeds. With accountability. The character of an institution takes decades to build.
Today, Albania does not just need a stronger SHISH. Albania needs a smarter state. The new draft law on some amendments to the organic law, article 2, among other things, stipulates that SHISH: “Collects information on terrorism and extremism, crimes against the environment, the production and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as well as on internal and regional stability.”
The first four categories are definable. Terrorism has a definition. Extremism has criteria. Environmental crimes are concrete. Weapons of mass destruction are tangible. “Internal stability” is not a security category. It is a political category, dressed up in the garb of security.
The problem is not the expansion of the mission. The problem is that four legal concepts and one political concept are placed in the same sentence, as if they were of the same nature. They are not.
The question that arises is: what will be considered a threat to “internal stability”?
In the legislation and missions of democratic intelligence services, the concept of "internal stability" is nowhere used as an autonomous and undefined notion.
Usually, laws use much more legally limited concepts such as: protection of constitutional order, protection of democratic order, counter-espionage, counter-terrorism, fight against violent extremism, protection of national security, and protection of critical infrastructure.
This is not simply a semantic issue. In modern constitutional law there is a very important distinction. “Constitutional order” is a legal concept. “Internal stability” is a political concept.
The problem is that “ internal stability” can be interpreted in many different ways. It can include civil unrest, mass protests, political crises, civil disobedience, social conflicts, electoral tensions, and even political opponents.
The powers of intelligence services should be linked to concrete and well-defined threats, not fluid notions. This is also why in liberal democracies the emphasis is on protecting the constitution, democracy, and national security, accompanied by strong parliamentary and judicial oversight.
In this case, the law moves from “protection of constitutional order” to “protection of internal stability.” It moves from a measurable legal concept to an interpretable political concept.
This is precisely why this article deserves serious professional debate. Not because intelligence should not deal with new threats, but because in a democracy its competences must be defined with surgical precision. Otherwise, the line between national security and the political management of social discontent begins to blur.
Albania needs a modern, professional intelligence service capable of facing the challenges of the time. But it also needs institutions that control power. Not simply and only institutions that exercise it. Because security without freedom produces fear, while freedom without security produces chaos. The challenge of the modern state is precisely to maintain this fragile balance.
The essential question is not just how strong SHISH should be. The real question is: how strong should democratic oversight of it be?
The more powers we give to SHISH, the more democratic guarantees we need to build for its control. This is not about distrust of the institution. On the contrary. It is about respect for its importance. The strongest democratic institutions are precisely those that are subject to the strongest oversight.
We should not forget the Albanian context here either. Perhaps, in a democracy with frequent rotation of power, with strong parliamentary control, with a functional opposition and independent media, this draft law would arouse less concern. The undefined concept would remain a theoretical risk.
But Albania is not that country. Albania has had 13+ years with the same individual at the helm. There is a great concentration of executive power. There are chronic weaknesses in parliamentary control. There is political polarization so high that “stability” and “my power” risk becoming synonymous in practice, even without being synonymous in law.
The government is passing the bill through parliament right now. Right now, Albania is in the midst of a season of protests. Meanwhile, such legal changes require a completely different political climate.
Today, it is easy to call those who hold flags and banners in their hands, rather than weapons, a “threat to internal stability .” The timing of this bill is not right. Time is the message.
Democracy has its bells. Some ring loudly. Some ring quietly, with just a vague word hidden somewhere in a paragraph of the law. The latter are the most dangerous, because no one hears them until it's too late.
This is a bell for Albanian democracy that is at a crossroads today. A bell for everything we have built so far. Democracy does not die from a single law. It dies from the accumulation of laws that no one saw when it was needed.
Albania needs a stronger state. But not with undefined concepts. Not under the conditions of a 13-year-old government, which degrades more and more every day. Not without debate.
A solid democratic state shows its strength in the clarity of the boundaries it sets for itself. In a state of law, the powers of the secret services must be precisely defined. Not with flexible notions.
This is the European standard. This is the democratic standard. And this bell, however small it may seem today, must be heard before democracy loses its inner voice.
