By Sherif BUNDO

“Twelve years after the 2014 division, Albania faces the question of whether the problem lies in the number of municipalities or in the model of financial and administrative organization of local government.” I do not want to think that this new territorial division reform will also fail like the first one. But, at a time when public opinion is saturated with all kinds of reactions and comments on the so-called new territorial division reform, it is worth telling some truths. Let us be honest at least with ourselves, and at least once.

It has become common for our country to make reforms and draft new laws based on a personal whim or personal dissatisfaction of a senior leader towards a city, towards an area that has not supported the majority that drafts and approves policies, or even towards a single leader of a minority. A draft law for a new territorial division has been published on social networks, including those fueled by the majority. A question arises: Why did the need for a new territorial division reform arise from the same political force that drafted the territorial division of the current organization a decade ago? Now, at least, we should take stock of the fruits of that reform before talking and discussing a new reform. The territorial division we currently have is one of the first reforms of today's majority. In 2014, the number of local government units was reduced from 373 communes and municipalities to 61 municipalities; The 12 regions were maintained as the second level of local government; the former communes were transformed into administrative units within the new municipalities. What were the consequences?

The village as identity, economy and national heritage
The reform was conceived in a wrong way. The public services produced by the local government were taken away from the beneficiaries of the services. The local government units were conceived in a wrong way as self-governing units from a financial perspective. (I will write about this concept a little later). Those units that did not generate income would fail. The central government would only take on the responsibility of guaranteeing the wage fund and investments in a national project such as urban renaissance. Conclusion: Areas without income were abandoned. The centers of the former municipalities that still kept some residents active, some services such as education, health and other agricultural services, were abandoned. The population fell drastically. This decline and this failure were accelerated by the arrogant attitude of the central government. Fate had it that the majority was put to an unprecedented test: Almost all municipalities and regions are administered and governed by the same political force, because as is known, the DP and other opposition parties did not participate in the elections of June 30, 2019. The current reform, regardless of the political and media gloss, regardless of the facade, is explained as a need because some municipalities are unable to govern themselves financially. This topic is very controversial and this is not the purpose of my writing. First, I must emphasize that: Before discussing the need for a new reform of territorial division, we must have the courage to admit the errors in the conception of the previous reform. Twelve years are not too many to say that time made the new reform necessary.

What must be said with courage is that the 2014 reform has failed. For this, an analysis must be made and some conclusions must be publicly stated. Yes. The 2014 reform has failed and immediately after it, the mass abandonment of villages began. We have abandoned the village, not only as an economic factor, but first and foremost as a factor of identity, as the origin of life, as our traditional way of life, as a treasure of culture and hospitality, as an organization of the well-functioning of life in small communities. We were forced to crowd into a few model cities, without public services, with endless problems. We forgot the village, what saved us from assimilation, what gave us the opportunity to remain Albanians, what gave us the opportunity to conserve and enrich our language. And from an economic point of view, we have abandoned the endless development potential of hilly and mountainous areas.

The development of villages is not done with individual projects, with special clients and with funds allocated to friends. This way classifies the inhabitants of this country into preferred and unwanted. Those unwanted have no choice but to seek a better life, in a more suitable environment. The protests are saying this loudly. In 2014, it was said that the local government administration would be cut and budgets and unnecessary expenses would be reduced. Conclusion: From 17 thousand employees in 2015, today we have somewhere around 37 thousand employees in local government units. These units have turned into electoral entities. Find me a single employee who has the courage to declare that they think differently and vote differently and I withdraw this conclusion that I expressed.

Secondly , when a reform fails, the correction should not be made in the direction that the failure deepens. The merger of some municipalities, according to the project that is circulating, is a measure due to the failure in the government's development programs. I do not want to be cynical, but excessive modesty also deserves the same assessment. In 2016, in an article, after a great activity in Berat of the Prime Minister with the leaders of local government, I emphasized: "local government units cannot be developed by shouting at each other, nor by telling them that here are the foundations and embassies, do projects and earn funds for development. Don't come around to the offices of ministries and don't send me MPs to beg me". What you sow, you will reap. The state of local government is the fruit of this policy. How can municipalities be maintained with funds collected from hands outstretched for help from foundations, projects, or acquaintances with foreigners. Of course, these are important resources. But, municipalities first need to be trained, to be enlightened about their role and mission. To generate resources in accordance with their characteristics. To become active units. Areas do not develop by crying every day “we do not have funds”. Their leaders must have an entrepreneurial profile. The only time I see them engaged is when it is announced that the prime minister will visit their areas. Oh my God, what a waste!

Thirdly, Do they have the right to propose a reform, the same as the one that failed, the same politicians, the same political force? What guarantee do we have that we will have failure on the table again? Rational behavior and rational reasoning, even more so the essence of the democratic system of governance, does not accept that those who have failed continue to serve the same reforms as the failed ones. This is a matter of principle. At least admit the failure and punish those who have failed. There are no jokes with public funds and people's lives. The territorial division reform is related not simply to the comfort of living of the residents in the affected areas, but to their existence and life. Whoever does not accept it has a problem with himself. If there are those who consider these opinions a little rigid, I will continue to insist on my convictions, without any reservation in the fact that I am right and without retreating from the attacks of the spoiled. I just want to see the country and the economy grow one day. That interests me more than anything.

Financial sufficiency or financial equality?

Now let us return to a principled topic: Should reforms for the organization of local government be built based on a single criterion: the criterion of sufficiency of financial resources? The criterion of financial sufficiency is important, but it cannot be considered either as the only criterion or as the criterion that determines the necessity of configuring local government units. There are many arguments for this. The first argument is related to the fact that the state budget is a giant portfolio of financial means whose basic function is the collection and distribution of financial resources in a harmonized manner, economic development and the proper functioning of public administration. Consequently, the criterion of coexistence, national unity, solidarity and assistance, as well as the criteria of necessity and freedom dictate the organization of public finances in the same way, regardless of the fact that some municipalities have more income and some have less income. Otherwise, only Tirana, Durrës and some municipalities in tourist areas should survive. No, gentlemen deputies and politicians. Everything should be based on the principle of financial equality. The state belongs to everyone. Do not build baseless laws. Do not encourage depopulation. Read, browse, and learn that money and finances were created precisely to give meaning to the state, to the entire territorial space as a unity. It is a grave mistake, it is political and intellectual misery, to think that a local government unit must necessarily be self-financed with internal financial resources. If the proper functioning of municipalities must be linked to financial sufficiency, then authorize a portion of the income derived from other sources such as personal income, VAT, to be collected by the tax administration and go to local budgets. What I am writing is not an error.

The Swiss model: small municipalities, strong democracy
There is another problem. Municipalities are conceived as units of local government with heavy administration, with numerous structures, departments and directorates. The minimal concept of public administration and governance is missing. Some municipalities can function with reduced, simplified administration. It is enough that the beneficiary of public services is closer to the center that provides the service. In Switzerland, there are about 2,100 municipalities. Some of them are very small: there are municipalities with less than 100 inhabitants, while some have only 30–50 inhabitants. For example, there are alpine villages that function as independent municipalities even with a very small population. Could this be the case for Frashëri, Voskopoja, Thethi, Valbona, Kurveleshi, Vithkuqi, or who knows which other center? The revenues of the municipalities there come mainly from: a part of the tax on the income of citizens; a part of the tax on the profit of businesses; property tax; local taxes for public services (water, waste, sewage, etc.); transfers from the canton and from the financial equalization system (i.e. from the state budget).

In some cantons, municipalities have the right to set their own local tax rates, by increasing or decreasing the cantonal base rate. Residents participate directly in decision-making. In smaller municipalities, they meet in the municipal assembly (Gemeindeversammlung), where they vote on the budget, investments, public projects and local taxes. In larger municipalities, these issues are decided by local referendum or by the elected municipal council. Make residents in Albania interested and closely connected to the fate of their decisions.

There are some very interesting curiosities. To be honest, I thought that the new reform would take steps forward and not backward. In the smallest Swiss municipalities (with fewer than 500 inhabitants), the administration often consists of only the municipal secretary and one or two other full-time or part-time employees. In some cases, the entire administration does not exceed two full-time jobs. In fact, studies show that more than half of Swiss municipalities have fewer than 1,000 inhabitants and the average administration of a municipality has only about 2,4 full-time jobs.
Another feature is that many political functions are exercised part-time. The mayor or members of the local council may also have other professions: teachers, farmers, lawyers or entrepreneurs. In Alpine villages, it is not unusual for the mayor to continue his regular job and deal with local administration only a few days a week. This small administrative structure is possible because many public services (secondary education, hospitals, police, etc.) are organized at the cantonal level or in cooperation between several municipalities. In this way, even a municipality with 200–300 inhabitants can function without a large administration.

For example, in a municipality with 500–1,000 inhabitants, the approval of a new school, the reconstruction of roads or the change in the level of taxes can be decided directly by the citizens by vote. With the changes proposed in the new draft law, in some municipalities there will be villages and still inhabited centers that will be located over 60 km from the center of the municipality. Is this correct, in conditions where road infrastructure is lacking? It is certain that these changes will negatively affect the deepening of the abandonment of the village. To create a clear idea, I am bringing an example: In an area near Elbasan, a 15-kilometer road has caused the population in that area to drop by only 12%, while for the same length of road, in another area, between Skrapar and Korça, three villages have been abandoned by 95%.