John F. Kennedy said: “Those who create power make an indispensable contribution to the greatness of the Nation. But those who question power make an equally indispensable contribution, especially when this challenge is disinterested. For it is they who determine whether we use power, or whether power uses us.” Democratic societies need institutions of power that function separately from the state.

Our political class has lost its moral compass and the trust of Albanians. However, political systems do not change with moral consensus. They change with law. It is not enough to be right. Something concrete must be done. Therefore, today we will talk about an idea, a clear proposal, a modern constitutional argument. Today, party leaders in Albania control the lists, the parliament, political careers. They have practically produced a party oligarchy. Therefore, limiting mandates is a proportional measure to guarantee more pluralism, internal democracy, elite rotation and protection of the democratic order.

The diagnosis we all know
In a democracy, political parties organize the competition for power. They represent different social interests and must translate the will of citizens into sustainable government policies. They are “bridges” between society and the state. This mission is accomplished by selecting candidates with integrity, building clear programs, and moderating public opinion pressures through institutions.

Political parties in modern society are mechanisms where individuals unite their moral and political values. There is no democracy without political parties. Albania has two major parties. One has had the same leader for over three decades. The other has built everything around the figure of the current leader. The party as an institution is dead. The party has survived as personal property. We see the consequences every day. There is no successor, because the successor is a threat. There is no internal debate, because debate is read as rebellion. There is no internal democracy, because internal democracy produces alternatives. And the alternative is dangerous for the leader. If the leader weakens, the entire party weakens. The state is run by the party. The party is run by the individual. The individual has no expiration date. We do not have democracy. It is inheritance by choice. It is stratified arrogance. It is a power that violates its citizens every day and forces them to vote with their feet. Albanian politics has degraded into a game of strongmen and interest groups "without knowledge or faith."

Proposal
One solution could be to amend the Law on Political Parties with this clear provision: “No person may exercise the function of the chairman of a registered political party for more than two terms, whether consecutive or not.” Mandates with a maximum duration of five years each. Ten years in total. Then, comes the mandatory removal. Periodic competition regardless of the election result. A transitional provision is also needed to remove chairmen who have been party chairman for over ten years.

The Central Election Commission verifies compliance as a condition for registering electoral lists. A party that violates this rule is not allowed to register candidates until it elects a leader according to the law. A simple mechanism. The effect can be revolutionary.

Three reasons why this law is fair
First, political parties are not private property. They are financed with public money. They enjoy exclusive legal privileges. Only parties can compete for power. Therefore, they must be subject to public rules. You cannot take Albanians' money and say that your internal organization is a private matter.

Second, rotation produces capacity. Political systems with mandatory leadership rotation have a higher level of internal professionalism. When it is known that the leader will leave, investment is made in the people, not the person. The party learns to walk on its own. Albania does not have a talent crisis. We have a space crisis. Limiting the leader's mandate creates space.

Third, democracy begins within the party. You cannot build a democratic culture in society when democratic institutions themselves are internal autocracies. The MP who is elected with a closed or open list is approved by the party leader and depends on his favors. He is not allowed to be an independent legislator. He is a tool. Term limits break the dependency. The leader knows he will leave. The MP knows he can survive without the current leader. This changes the internal calculations.

Counterarguments and why they fall
“But people have the right to choose who they want.”

The mistake is conceptual. People have the right to vote for the party. The party elects the president, not the people. Therefore, internal restrictions are completely legal and reasonable. No one is limiting the citizen's vote. The internal monopoly on a public institution must be limited.

"What about quality? What if there isn't another president as good?"

This is exactly the argument that every autocrat has always used. “Only I know how to do it.” “After me, the Qahmeti.” If the party chairman, after ten years, has not formed a single capable leader behind him, this is his failure, not the reason to stay.

"The Constitution does not allow it."

Permits. The proposal to amend the Law on Political Parties is in accordance with the spirit and letter of Article 9 of the Constitution. In comparative constitutional law, the jurisprudence of the German Constitutional Court, the European Court of Human Rights and the Venice Commission, etc., it is accepted that the state can establish democratic rules for political parties as public entities. We are not the first. Parties are not simply private associations, but institutions with a constitutional public function. Democracy is also protected through proportional restrictions.

What would happen?
The first year, no visible change. But, after the first mandate after the law comes into force, the parties will be forced to invest in their ranks. New names will appear. Some of them will be mediocre. Some will be brilliant. You never know, if you don't let them appear. After two cycles, Albania could have a political class with new blood. With leaders who are clear that they have a deadline and will work differently. Unlike today, when every party leader behaves as if he is eternal and irreplaceable. The most important effect will not be what is seen. It will be the change in the internal calculation. When you know that you are going to leave, you start thinking about legacy, not about survival.

The challenge for the parties
This article is a public proposal. It is neither a petition, nor a resolution, nor a political statement. It is a legal text open to debate. Every political party in Albania is welcome to take an official position on it. Are you in favor of limiting the mandates of party leaders by law? Yes or no. Without ambiguity. Silence is also a position.

Epilogue
The one who founded it was the only one who did not try to rule the Albanian state. His departure from power, in January 1914, was an act of leadership, not defeatism. But he left because he chose to. We cannot leave the rotation of power as a matter of personal virtue. This virtue must be legislated. Ten years. Two terms. Then he paves the way. This is the democratic standard. Political parties are not private property. They are constitutional institutions with a public function. Albania must build institutions that do not depend on the kindness of the leader, but on the strength of the rule. Ultimately, the law is nothing more than “a wise limitation, which gives us the opportunity to be free.”