Local Referendums: From Consulted Citizens to Co-Decision-Makers

Luiza Hoxhaj

Expert in Regional and Local Development

We increasingly speak about citizen participation in local governance: transparency, public hearings, consultation, stakeholder engagement, and the co-creation of public policies.

And rightly so. Governance that makes decisions about a territory without listening to the people who live there can hardly be considered good governance. Yet there are circumstances in which we need to ask a further question: Is consultation enough?

Consultation, however genuinely conducted, is not the same as co-decision-making. Citizens are informed, heard, and invited to express their views, but the final decision remains with representative institutions.

There are, however, decisions that affect the relationship between a community and its territory so profoundly that moving one step further may become necessary: from consulted citizens to citizens who participate directly in decision-making.

This is where the discussion about local referendums begins.

Not an Alternative to Representative Democracy

A local referendum is not a substitute for the municipal council, the mayor, or other elected institutions. Nor should it become a mechanism for putting every decision concerning local administration to a popular vote. Representative democracy has its own institutions, which must have not only the authority but also the responsibility to govern.

Yet local democracy does not end with the periodic election of representatives. On certain matters, particularly when decisions structurally and permanently affect a territorial community, representative democracy may be complemented by instruments of direct democracy.

It is important, therefore, to distinguish between different levels of citizen participation.

Information tells citizens what is being done. Consultation asks citizens what they think. Participation involves citizens in shaping the decision-making process. A referendum, within the scope and legal effects established by law, allows citizens to express their will directly on a specific choice.

The question, therefore, is not whether a referendum is more democratic than a municipal council. These are different ways of expressing democratic legitimacy.

The relevant question is: When does the nature of a decision require institutional representation to be complemented by the direct expression of the community's will?

When Territorial Boundaries Change, Who Should Be Consulted?

The debate surrounding Albania's 2026 administrative-territorial reform offers a concrete illustration of this question.

As part of the reform process, public hearings were organised across the country's twelve regions. An examination of the published hearing records indicates that discussions focused primarily on the functioning of local government: responsibilities, financing, administrative capacities, public services, and possible approaches to territorial organisation.

During the hearing in Vlora, for example, alongside functional and administrative concerns, participants from Selenica, Konispol, and Orikum raised issues directly related to the territorial status and identity of their communities.

These discussions show that the hearings also provided opportunities for communities to express territorial concerns and proposals. However, the specific territorial configuration that would subsequently be proposed had not yet been presented as the subject of those discussions.

This brings us to an important distinction: Consulting citizens about a problem is not the same as consulting them about alternative solutions; and consulting them about alternatives is not necessarily the same as consulting them about a specific proposed decision.

All three may form part of the same participatory process, but they do not automatically replace one another.

When citizens are asked what is not functioning in the existing territorial organisation, they contribute to the diagnosis. When they are asked which alternatives would be most appropriate, they contribute to designing the reform. But when a concrete proposal envisages that the municipality in which they live will lose its existing status and be merged into another local government unit, the decision-making process has entered a different stage.

The question is no longer simply: What kind of reform do we need? It also becomes: What does the affected community think about the specific territorial change being proposed?

An European Principle

This is not merely a theoretical question.

The European Charter of Local Self-Government devotes a specific provision to changes in local authority boundaries. Article 5 establishes that changes in local authority boundaries should not be made without prior consultation of the local communities concerned, possibly by means of a referendum where this is permitted by statute.

This does not mean that communities automatically acquire a right to veto every territorial reform.

A reform may be justified by demographic, economic, financial, or administrative considerations, or by the need to provide more effective public services. Local interests must also be considered in relation to the broader public interest.

Nevertheless, the underlying principle remains important: The more directly a decision affects the territorial identity and institutional belonging of a community, the more important it becomes to establish how that community's will is expressed.

Europe does not offer a single model of territorial organisation or decision-making on local boundary changes. Different approaches reflect different institutional traditions and legal systems, alongside shared principles of local self-government, subsidiarity, and democratic participation.

The challenge, therefore, is not to seek one universal formula for every municipality, but to identify the mechanisms that make territorial decisions better informed, more representative, and more legitimate.

A Parallel from History

European history reminds us that the relationship between territory and the will of its population is not a new question.

Following the First World War, the dissolution of empires and the creation or expansion of states in Central and Southeastern Europe brought questions of borders, populations, and minorities to the centre of the emerging political order.

In the debates of that period, influenced in part by the principles articulated by Woodrow Wilson, the interests and territorial affiliations of affected populations acquired particular significance, although these principles were applied unevenly and were often constrained by the interests of the major powers.

Naturally, changes to international borders after a world war cannot be equated with administrative-territorial reorganisation within a contemporary democratic state. These are fundamentally different historical and legal circumstances.

The parallel of interest here is more limited: the relationship between representative decision-making and the expressed will of populations affected by territorial change.

History does not provide a model to be copied. It reminds us of a principle: the more profoundly a decision affects a community's territorial belonging, the stronger the case for making that community's will part of the decision-making process.

In contemporary local democracy, the municipal council is the representative body of the community. Its position on changes to a municipality's status or boundaries therefore carries institutional weight and deserves serious consideration.

But what happens when opposition also emerges among citizens themselves?

Municipal Councils Represent, Protests Signal, Referendums Measure

This question becomes particularly relevant when territorial decisions encounter opposition both from representative institutions and from citizens.

During the debate on Albania's 2026 territorial reform, municipal councils in several municipalities, including Poliçan, Selenica, Dimal, Divjaka, Fushë-Arrëz, and Maliq, expressed opposition to proposed mergers with other local government units. In some cases, these institutional positions were accompanied by protests and other forms of civic response.

These represent two distinct forms of democratic expression. Municipal councils represent their communities through mandates obtained in elections.

Protest is a legitimate instrument of civic expression. It makes opposition visible, raises public awareness, and calls upon decision-makers to take citizens' concerns into account.

Yet a protest does not necessarily reveal how widely that opposition is shared throughout the community. A protest, however significant, is not a referendum.

It may demonstrate that a concern exists and should not be ignored. But it cannot, by itself, establish whether that concern is shared by an active group of citizens, a substantial part of the community, or a majority of residents.

Even a unanimous position adopted by a municipal council, despite its considerable representative significance, is not a direct measurement of the views of all citizens on the specific issue. This is precisely where a local referendum may serve a different purpose.

It can channel opposition from protest into an institutional process and help measure what protest can only signal. In this sense:

Municipal councils represent.
Protests signal.
Referendums measure and formally express the citizens' will.

This does not imply that every protest should lead to a referendum.

However, when a decision is structural, has long-term consequences, or is difficult to reverse, and when significant opposition raises questions about the extent of public acceptance, it may be reasonable to ask:

Should the community's will be measured directly?

Indeed, during the territorial reform hearings in Fier, representatives of civil society also proposed the use of a consultative local referendum for changes to territorial boundaries.

This illustrates that discussion of referendums need not emerge only as a reaction to a reform. It can also arise within the participatory process itself.

From “Listen to Me” to “Ask Me”

Here lies the essential distinction between consultation and a referendum.

During consultation, citizens effectively say:

“Listen to my opinion about the decision you are going to make.”

Through a referendum, they seek something more:

“On this particular issue, I want to express my will directly.”

This represents an important shift in the culture of governance.

Of course, a consultative referendum does not automatically transfer final decision-making authority from institutions to citizens. Its legal effects depend on the applicable legal framework.

Nevertheless, even when it is not legally binding, a referendum may generate democratic information of a different nature from that produced through hearings, petitions, or protests.

A local referendum should not be viewed as an instrument of confrontation with institutions. Under certain circumstances, it may provide those institutions with additional democratic legitimacy when making difficult decisions.

Ultimately, the relationship between citizens and their territory is not merely administrative. It is also connected to belonging, identity, collective memory, and the way people experience the place in which they live.

For this reason, on certain issues, citizens may express that relationship in very simple terms:

“This is my city. I want to be part of how it changes.”

But this demand for participation should not remain merely a declaration of principle. It needs appropriate institutional channels.

When Should a Local Referendum Be Considered?

Not for every decision. Not as a substitute for elected institutions. Not whenever disagreement arises. A local referendum should remain an exceptional instrument precisely so that it retains its democratic significance.

Nevertheless, it deserves serious consideration when a decision changes a community's administrative-territorial boundaries or status; when it structurally and permanently affects local organisation; when its consequences are difficult to reverse; or when significant civic and institutional opposition exists whose extent cannot be established through ordinary participatory mechanisms alone.

In such circumstances, holding a local referendum may be a legitimate democratic option to examine, within the limits and procedures established by the Constitution and applicable legislation.

It is not necessarily a vote against reform or against the institutions proposing it. Rather, it may offer a way to obtain democratic information that is otherwise missing: how much support or opposition does the proposed change actually have within the community directly affected?

This information has value even when final decision-making authority rests elsewhere.

Good decision-making depends not only on procedural legality and arguments of administrative efficiency. It also requires an understanding of the interests, concerns, and will of the communities that will live with its consequences.

Local democracy should not be measured solely by whether citizens have been heard. In certain circumstances, it also requires a willingness to ask them directly.

Perhaps this is the deeper meaning of the transition from consulted citizens to co-decision-makers.

Sources and References

1.     Council of Europe (1985). European Charter of Local Self-Government, particularly Articles 4 and 5.

2.     Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe. Contemporary Commentary on the Explanatory Report to the European Charter of Local Self-Government.

3.     Parliament of Albania, Special Parliamentary Committee on Administrative-Territorial Reform (2026). Public hearing documentation and published minutes, particularly the hearings in Vlora and Fier.

4.     Municipal council proceedings, decisions, and publicly available meeting recordings concerning the 2026 territorial reorganisation proposals, including those of Poliçan, Selenica, Dimal, Divjaka, Fushë-Arrëz, and Maliq.

5.     Wilson, Woodrow (1918). Fourteen Points Address, 8 January 1918.

Methodological note: This analytical article draws on the principles of local democracy, the European framework for local self-government, and a review of publicly available documentation relating to Albania's administrative-territorial reform process. The 2026 reform is used as an illustration of the broader relationship between public consultation, institutional representation, and local referendums.

Referendumi vendor: nga qytetari i konsultuar te qytetari bashkëvendimmarrës

Flasim gjithnjë e më shumë për pjesëmarrjen qytetare në qeverisjen vendore: për transparencën, dëgjesat publike, konsultimin, përfshirjen e grupeve të interesit dhe bashkëkrijimin e politikave publike.

Dhe me të drejtë. Një qeverisje që vendos për territorin pa dëgjuar njerëzit që jetojnë në të, vështirë se mund të konsiderohet qeverisje e mirë.

Por ka raste kur duhet të shtrojmë një pyetje tjetër: A mjafton konsultimi? Sepse konsultimi, sado seriozisht të zhvillohet, nuk është i njëjtë me bashkëvendimmarrjen. Qytetari informohet, dëgjohet, shpreh mendimin e tij, por vendimi përfundimtar mbetet te institucionet përfaqësuese.

Megjithatë, ekzistojnë vendime që prekin aq thellë marrëdhënien ndërmjet komunitetit dhe territorit, sa mund të lindë nevoja për të kaluar një stad më tej: nga qytetari i konsultuar te qytetari bashkëvendimmarrës.

Pikërisht këtu fillon diskutimi për referendumin vendor.

Jo kundër demokracisë përfaqësuese

Referendumi vendor nuk është alternativë ndaj këshillit bashkiak, kryetarit të bashkisë apo institucioneve të tjera të zgjedhura. Dhe sigurisht nuk mund të jetë instrument për të çuar në votim çdo vendim të administrimit vendor.

Demokracia përfaqësuese ka institucionet e saj dhe ato duhet të kenë jo vetëm të drejtën, por edhe përgjegjësinë për të qeverisur. Por demokracia vendore nuk përfundon me zgjedhjen periodike të përfaqësuesve.

Në çështje të caktuara, sidomos kur një vendimmarrje prek në mënyrë strukturore dhe afatgjatë vetë komunitetin territorial, demokracia përfaqësuese mund të plotësohet nga instrumentet e demokracisë së drejtpërdrejtë. Këtu duhen dalluar edhe shkallët e pjesëmarrjes:

a)    Informimi i tregon qytetarit çfarë po bëhet. b) Konsultimi e pyet se çfarë mendon. c) Pjesëmarrja e përfshin në procesin e formësimit të vendimit. d) Ndërsa referendumi, në çështjet dhe sipas efekteve që përcakton ligji, i jep mundësinë të shprehet drejtpërdrejt mbi një zgjedhje të caktuar.

Pyetja, pra, nuk është nëse referendumi është më demokratik se këshilli bashkiak. Ato janë forma të ndryshme të shprehjes së legjitimitetit demokratik.

Pyetja është tjetër: Kur natyra e një vendimi kërkon që përfaqësimit t'i shtohet edhe shprehja e drejtpërdrejtë e komunitetit?

Kur ndryshon territori, kush duhet të pyetet?

Debati për reformën administrativo-territoriale në Shqipëri, në vitin 2026, na jep një rast konkret për ta shqyrtuar këtë pyetje.

Gjatë procesit të reformës u organizuan dëgjesa publike në 12 qarqet e vendit. Nga shqyrtimi i minutave të publikuara të dëgjesave rezulton se diskutimet u orientuan kryesisht drejt funksionimit të qeverisjes vendore: kompetencave, financave, kapaciteteve administrative, shërbimeve dhe alternativave të organizimit territorial.

Në dëgjesën e Vlorës, për shembull, krahas problematikave funksionale, pjesëmarrës nga Selenica, Konispoli dhe Orikumi ngritën çështje që lidheshin drejtpërdrejt me statusin dhe përkatësinë territoriale të komuniteteve të tyre.

Kjo tregon se dëgjesat shërbyen edhe për të evidentuar sensibilitete dhe propozime territoriale nga vetë komunitetet.

Por konfigurimi konkret territorial që do të propozohej më pas nuk ishte ende objekt i këtyre diskutimeve.

Dhe këtu duhet bërë një dallim i rëndësishëm: Konsultimi për problemin nuk është i njëjtë me konsultimin për alternativat; dhe konsultimi për alternativat nuk është domosdoshmërisht konsultim për zgjidhjen konkrete që propozohet.

Të tria mund të jenë pjesë të të njëjtit proces pjesëmarrës. Por nuk e zëvendësojnë automatikisht njëra-tjetrën.

Nëse qytetari pyetet se çfarë nuk funksionon në organizimin territorial, ai kontribuon në diagnozë. Nëse pyetet se cilat alternativa do të ishin më të përshtatshme, ai kontribuon në projektimin e reformës.

Por kur propozimi konkret parashikoi që bashkia ku ai jeton të humbasë statusin dhe t'i bashkohet një njësie tjetër,  hymë në një stad tjetër të vendimmarrjes, ku pyetjes: Çfarë reforme na duhet? ju shtua edhe: Çfarë mendon komuniteti për ndryshimin konkret që propozohet për territorin e tij?

Një parim europian

Kjo nuk është vetëm një pyetje teorike.

Karta Europiane e Vetëqeverisjes Vendore i kushton ndryshimit të kufijve territorialë një dispozitë të posaçme. Neni 5 përcakton se ndryshimet e kufijve të njësive vendore nuk duhet të bëhen pa konsultimin paraprak të komuniteteve të prekura dhe përmend referendumin si një nga format e mundshme të këtij konsultimi, aty ku ligji e lejon. Kjo nuk do të thotë se komuniteti fiton automatikisht të drejtën e vetos ndaj çdo reforme territoriale.

Një reformë mund të mbështetet në arsye demografike, ekonomike, financiare, administrative apo në nevojën për shërbime më efikase. Interesi lokal duhet të vendoset edhe në raport me interesin publik më të gjerë.

Por parimi mbetet i rëndësishëm: Sa më drejtpërdrejt një vendim ndryshon përkatësinë territoriale të një komuniteti, aq më e rëndësishme bëhet mënyra se si shprehet vullneti i atij komuniteti.

Europa nuk ofron një model të vetëm të organizimit territorial apo të vendimmarrjes për ndryshimin e kufijve vendorë. Ajo ofron modele të ndryshme, të ndërtuara mbi tradita institucionale dhe sisteme juridike të ndryshme, por edhe parime të përbashkëta të vetëqeverisjes, subsidiaritetit dhe pjesëmarrjes demokratike.

Prandaj, çështja nuk është të kërkojmë një formulë universale për çdo bashki, por të kuptojmë se cilat mekanizma e bëjnë vendimmarrjen territoriale më të informuar, më përfaqësuese dhe më legjitime.

Një paralele nga historia

Historia europiane na kujton se marrëdhënia ndërmjet territorit dhe vullnetit të popullsisë nuk është një çështje e re.

Pas Luftës së Parë Botërore, shpërbërja e perandorive dhe krijimi apo zgjerimi i shteteve të reja në Europën Qendrore dhe Juglindore sollën në qendër të rendit të ri politik çështjen e kufijve, popullsive dhe minoriteteve.

Në diskutimet e kohës, të ndikuara edhe nga parimet e shpallura nga Woodrow Wilson, çështja e interesave dhe përkatësisë së popullsive të prekura mori një rëndësi të veçantë, edhe pse zbatimi i këtyre parimeve ishte i pabarabartë dhe shpesh i kushtëzuar nga interesat e fuqive.

Sigurisht, nuk mund të krahasojmë ndryshimin e kufijve ndërmjet shteteve pas një lufte botërore me riorganizimin administrativo-territorial brenda një shteti demokratik bashkëkohor. Janë realitete historike dhe juridike të ndryshme.

Paralelja që na intereson është tjetër: marrëdhënia ndërmjet vendimmarrjes përfaqësuese dhe vullnetit të popullsive që preken nga ndryshimi territorial.

Historia nuk na jep një model për ta kopjuar, por na kujton një parim: sa më thellë një vendim prek përkatësinë territoriale të një komuniteti, aq më e fortë bëhet kërkesa që vullneti i atij komuniteti të jetë pjesë e vendimmarrjes.

Në demokracinë vendore të sotme, këshilli bashkiak është organi përfaqësues i komunitetit. Prandaj qëndrimi i tij për ndryshimin e statusit apo kufijve të bashkisë ka një peshë institucionale që duhet marrë seriozisht.

Por çfarë ndodh kur, krahas tij, shfaqet edhe kundërshtimi qytetar?

Këshilli përfaqëson, protesta sinjalizon, referendumi mat

Kjo pyetje merr rëndësi të veçantë kur vendimmarrja territoriale shoqërohet me kundërshtime të shprehura si në nivelin e institucioneve përfaqësuese, ashtu edhe në atë qytetar.

Në debatin për reformën territoriale të vitit 2026, në disa bashki, ndër të cilat Poliçani, Selenica, Dimali, Divjaka, Fushë-Arrëzi dhe Maliqi, janë raportuar qëndrime kundërshtuese të këshillave bashkiakë ndaj bashkimeve të propozuara. Në disa prej tyre kundërshtimi është shoqëruar edhe me protesta apo forma të tjera të reagimit qytetar.

Këto janë dy forma të ndryshme të shprehjes demokratike. Këshilli bashkiak përfaqëson komunitetin përmes mandatit të marrë në zgjedhje. Protesta është një instrument legjitim i shprehjes qytetare. Ajo e bën të dukshëm kundërshtimin, krijon sensibilitet publik dhe i kërkon vendimmarrjes ta marrë në konsideratë.

Por protesta nuk na tregon domosdoshmërisht përmasën e këtij kundërshtimi në të gjithë komunitetin. Një protestë, sado e rëndësishme, nuk është referendum.

Ajo mund të na tregojë se ekziston një shqetësim që nuk duhet shpërfillur. Por vetëm prej saj nuk mund të dimë nëse kemi përballë një grup aktiv qytetarësh, një pjesë të konsiderueshme të komunitetit apo shumicën e tij.

Edhe qëndrimi unanim i një këshilli bashkiak, ndonëse me peshë të veçantë përfaqësuese, nuk është matje e drejtpërdrejtë e vullnetit të gjithë qytetarëve mbi çështjen konkrete.

Pikërisht këtu referendumi vendor mund të marrë një funksion tjetër. Ai mund ta kanalizojë kundërshtimin nga protesta drejt një procesi institucional dhe të ndihmojë të matet ajo që protesta vetëm e sinjalizon.

Në këtë kuptim:

Këshilli bashkiak përfaqëson.
Protesta sinjalizon.
Referendumi mat dhe formalizon vullnetin qytetar.

Kjo nuk do të thotë se çdo protestë duhet të prodhojë referendum. Por kur kemi një vendim strukturor, me pasoja afatgjata ose të vështira për t'u kthyer pas, dhe një kundërshtim që ngre pikëpyetje mbi shkallën e pranimit të vendimit, atëherë mund të jetë e arsyeshme të shtrohet pyetja:

A duhet ta masim drejtpërdrejt vullnetin e komunitetit?

Gjatë dëgjesave për reformën territoriale, nga përfaqësues të shoqërisë civile në Fier u propozua edhe përdorimi i referendumit vendor konsultativ për ndryshimet e kufijve territorialë. Kjo tregon se diskutimi mbi referendumin nuk është domosdoshmërisht një reagim i mëvonshëm ndaj reformës, por mund të lindë edhe brenda vetë procesit pjesëmarrës.

Nga “më dëgjo” te “më pyet”

Këtu qëndron dallimi ndërmjet konsultimit dhe referendumit.

Në konsultim qytetari thotë: “Dëgjo mendimin tim për vendimin që do të marrësh.”

Në referendum ai kërkon diçka më shumë: “Për këtë çështje dua të shpreh drejtpërdrejt vullnetin tim.”

Ky është një ndryshim i rëndësishëm në kulturën e qeverisjes.

Sigurisht, një referendum konsultativ nuk e transferon automatikisht kompetencën përfundimtare të vendimmarrjes nga institucionet te qytetarët. Efekti juridik i referendumit varet nga kuadri ligjor. Por edhe kur nuk është juridikisht detyrues, ai mund të prodhojë një informacion demokratik të një natyre tjetër nga ai i dëgjesave, peticioneve apo protestave.

Referendumi vendor nuk duhet parë si instrument konflikti me institucionet. Në rrethana të caktuara, ai mund të jetë instrument për t'u dhënë atyre legjitimitet shtesë në marrjen e vendimeve të vështira. Në fund të fundit, marrëdhënia e qytetarit me territorin nuk është vetëm administrative. Ajo lidhet edhe me përkatësinë, identitetin, kujtesën dhe mënyrën se si ai e përjeton vendin ku jeton.

Prandaj, në çështje të caktuara, qytetari mund ta shprehë fare thjesht këtë marrëdhënie: “Ky është qyteti im. Dua të jem pjesë e mënyrës se si ai ndryshon.”

Kjo kërkesë për pjesëmarrje nuk duhet të mbetet vetëm një deklarim parimor. Ajo duhet të gjejë format e përshtatshme institucionale.

Në çfarë rastesh duhet kërkuar referendumi vendor?

Jo për çdo vendim, jo për të zëvendësuar institucionet e zgjedhura, jo sa herë që ekziston një kundërshtim duhet kërkuar referendum. Referendumi vendor duhet të mbetet një instrument i veçantë, që të ruajë peshën e tij,

Referendumi meriton të konsiderohet seriozisht kur një vendim ndryshon kufijtë ose përkatësinë administrativo-territoriale të një komuniteti; kur prek në mënyrë strukturore dhe afatgjatë organizimin e tij vendor; kur pasojat janë të vështira për t'u kthyer pas; ose kur ekziston një kundërshtim i rëndësishëm qytetar dhe institucional, përmasat e të cilit nuk mund të përcaktohen vetëm përmes formave të zakonshme të pjesëmarrjes.

Në këto rrethana, zhvillimi i një referendumi vendor mund të jetë një mundësi legjitime demokratike për t'u shqyrtuar, brenda kufijve dhe procedurave të përcaktuara nga Kushtetuta dhe ligji.

Ai nuk është domosdoshmërisht një votim kundër reformës apo kundër institucioneve që e propozojnë atë. Por, mund të jetë një mënyrë për të siguruar informacionin demokratik që mungon: sa mbështetje apo kundërshtim ka realisht ndryshimi i propozuar në komunitetin që preket prej tij?

Dhe ky informacion ka vlerë edhe kur vendimi përfundimtar i takon një autoriteti tjetër. Sepse një vendimmarrje e mirë nuk mbështetet vetëm në ligjshmërinë e procedurës dhe në argumentet e efikasitetit administrativ. Ajo ka nevojë edhe për njohjen e interesave, shqetësimeve dhe vullnetit të komuniteteve mbi të cilat prodhon pasoja.

Demokracia vendore nuk matet vetëm me faktin nëse qytetari është dëgjuar. Në raste të caktuara, ajo kërkon edhe gatishmërinë për ta pyetur drejtpërdrejt.

Dhe ndoshta pikërisht këtu qëndron kuptimi më i plotë i kalimit nga qytetari i konsultuar te qytetari bashkëvendimmarrës. 

Burime dhe referenca

1.     Këshilli i Europës (1985). European Charter of Local Self-Government, veçanërisht nenet 4 dhe 5.

2.     Kongresi i Autoriteteve Lokale dhe Rajonale i Këshillit të Europës. Contemporary Commentary on the Explanatory Report to the European Charter of Local Self-Government.

3.     Kuvendi i Shqipërisë, Komisioni i Posaçëm për Reformën Administrativo-Territoriale (2026). Dokumentacioni dhe minutat e dëgjesave publike, veçanërisht ato të qarqeve Vlorë dhe Fier.

4.     Dokumentacioni institucional dhe vendimet e këshillave bashkiakë për propozimet e riorganizimit territorial, 2026 — për rastet e verifikuara.

5.     Wilson, Woodrow (1918). Fourteen Points Address, 8 janar 1918.

Shënim metodologjik: Artikulli mbështetet në analizën e parimeve të demokracisë vendore, të kuadrit europian të vetëqeverisjes dhe në shqyrtimin e dokumentacionit publik të procesit të reformës administrativo-territoriale në Shqipëri. Rasti i reformës së vitit 2026 përdoret si ilustrim për diskutimin më të gjerë mbi raportin ndërmjet konsultimit publik, përfaqësimit institucional dhe referendumit vendor.

 Luiza Hoxhaj

Eksperte për Zhvillimin Rajonal dhe Lokal

OPEN LETTER -The Ethnographic Museum of Vlora: Let Us Preserve It, Let Us Bring It Back to Life!

 

A reflection on heritage, memory, and the way we tell the stories of Vlora

Addressed to: The Municipality of Vlora , the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sports, as well and the institutions responsible for cultural heritage

From: Luiza Hoxhaj, Citizen of Vlora

Dear Institutional Leaders,

The civic reactions of recent days, the different sensitivities expressed, the views of professionals and representatives of organisations, as well as the public and political discourse surrounding the interventions in Vlora’s Historic Centre, have prompted me to reflect and to share my views publicly.

I do not seek to represent all these positions, nor do I necessarily share every argument expressed within them. But I believe that the very existence of such diverse sensitivities is reason enough not to reduce the issue to a simple division between being “for” or “against” a museum.

That is not how I see the issue.

For me, the question is broader: how can we honour one history without diminishing another, and how can we intervene in a historic space without losing the hierarchy, authenticity, and memory it has inherited?

The decision has been made and the works have begun. But the fact that a process has entered the implementation phase does not mean that the decision itself cannot be reconsidered if, along the way, reasonable questions arise about its impact on historic heritage, authenticity, proportionality, or its relationship with the ensemble as a whole.

For precisely this reason, I propose that not only the manner in which the project is being implemented be reviewed but, where historical, urban-planning, and museological arguments so require, that the decision itself regarding its concept, function, and location also be reconsidered.

Reconsideration does not necessarily mean turning back. It may mean finding a better way forward before an intervention made today becomes an irreversible reality tomorrow.

An institution does not weaken its authority by reflecting on a decision. On the contrary, a willingness to listen, to consider new arguments and, where necessary, to correct a choice is a sign of responsible decision-making.

Let Us See the Whole Before the Part

The Ethnographic Museum, the historic building where the “Labëria” Patriotic Club was founded in 1908, the Sharraj House, and the other historic buildings surrounding them are not isolated objects. Together, they form an ensemble and create an architectural, urban, and historical relationship.

Their value lies not only in each individual building, but also in the way they are read together. Therefore, every new intervention should be assessed not only on its individual quality, but also on the impact it creates on the whole: volumes, heights, materials, façades, lighting, sightlines, and the visual hierarchy of the ensemble.

In this sense, the intervention in the Sharraj House should not be considered only in relation to the new function it will assume, but also in terms of the transformation of the historic building itself and the relationship that the new additions and volumes create with the surrounding structures.

The Ethnographic Museum and the former “Labëria” Patriotic Club should not be overshadowed — either physically or in the historical reading of this space.

The “Labëria” Club: Let Us Preserve It, but Also Bring It Back to Life

Preserving heritage should not mean freezing the past.

A historic building is preserved not only when its walls are restored. It is also preserved when we succeed in keeping alive the spirit and social function it once had. And the history of the “Labëria” Club itself offers us an idea for its future.

It was not simply a building. It was a space for civic organisation, culture, education, and patriotic activity. In 1910, in this building, Marigo Posio opened an Albanian-language school for the girls of Vlora. Here, knowledge was passed from one generation to another. Education was both a means of emancipation and a way of preserving identity. Why not bring that spirit back to life today?

If Vlora’s Historic Centre needs an active centre for culture, education, tradition, and civic dialogue, I believe we should begin precisely with the “Labëria” Club — not by inventing a new function for it, but by bringing into contemporary life the function that history itself gave it.

Part of it could once again become a forum for debate, thought, and civic activity. And why not a “School of Tradition”, where the living masters of Vlora and Labëria could pass their knowledge on to younger generations? Vlora still has such people. One of them is master Vendim Kapaj[i], a connoisseur and performer of Labëria’s traditional wind instruments — the culë dyjare, fyell, and pipizanë — who also teaches them to children.

A century ago, the girls of Vlora entered this building to learn Albanian. Today, the children of Vlora could enter it to learn an instrument, a song, a craft, an element of the culture that belongs to them.

What is taught changes; the act of transmission continues. Then the museum is no longer only a place we visit to see what we once were. It becomes a place where we learn how to carry forward what we are.

This, for me, is what bringing heritage back to life means.

Jewish History Is Part of the History of Vlora

The history of a city is not made up only of the events or people we choose to honour. It is built from all the layers that time has left upon it.

Ancient, Roman, Byzantine, medieval, and Ottoman history; the presence and passage of different populations and communities; the Albanian National Awakening; Independence; the Vlora War; and later developments are all part of the city’s history.

The Jewish presence is also one of these layers and deserves to be documented and passed on with due seriousness. In this case, there is another valuable dimension: a history of hospitality and coexistence across different periods, which, in the darkest moment of Nazi persecution, became a story of protection and rescue. This is a history that should be told.

The question, therefore, is not whether it “deserves” to be part of the city’s memory. The question is how to tell it in the appropriate proportion, context, and relationship with the history of Vlora as a whole.

For precisely this reason, my primary proposal remains that the history of the Jewish presence and Albanian-Jewish relations should have a dedicated section within the Historical Museum of Vlora.

There, it could be placed in relation to the other layers of the city’s history, without being diminished and without being separated from them.

Let us strengthen the whole and, through it, the part.

Not Only Presence, but Relationship

The narrative itself also deserves reflection.

The history we have to tell is not only the history of a community that lived in Vlora. It is also the history of how that community was received, the relationships it developed with the city and, in the most difficult moments, of the people who opened their doors and took risks upon themselves to protect human lives.

Therefore, whether within the Historical Museum or — if, after reconsideration, the choice of a separate museum is retained — I believe that a narrative built around presence, hospitality, Besa, protection, and rescue would be more representative.

In the case of a separate museum, consideration could also be given to a concept such as the “Museum of Besa and Rescue” or the “Museum of Vlora’s Besa.”

Not to replace Jewish history with a self-congratulatory Albanian narrative, but rather to tell the story of the relationship between them. In this narrative, Besa does not divide two histories. It connects them.

Must All Memory Be Concentrated in One Place?

Here, I believe, we should ask another question.

Is it necessary for all the layers of Vlora’s memory to be physically concentrated in the same area of the Historic Centre?

Vlora has its own places of memory. The Street of the Jews is one of them. It is a historic space within the city that already carries the memory of the Jewish presence. Why not bring it back to life as well?

It could become a living space of interpretation, where documents, family histories, photographs, testimonies, guided visits, and contemporary interpretive tools could tell the story of the Jewish presence in Vlora, coexistence with the city, hospitality, and protection.

In this way, memory would not be artificially concentrated at a single point. It would follow the real geography of the city’s history.

The “Labëria” Club could be revitalised as an active centre for culture, education, tradition, and civic dialogue. The Street of the Jews could be revitalised as a place of memory and interpretation of the Jewish presence and Albanian-Jewish relations.

Other authentic places connected with this history could become part of the same itinerary. The Historical Museum could connect these layers within the broader narrative.

And the city itself could become the museum that brings them together.

Not every history needs to be relocated into the same building in order to become visible. Sometimes the most authentic way to tell history is to allow it to speak where it actually happened.

What Are We Preserving, and What Are We Creating?

This brings me to another issue that requires transparency.

The Albanian Jewish Museum project has been publicly presented not only as a museum, but also as an active cultural hub, with educational functions and activities.

This makes the question of its relationship with the ensemble in which it is located even more important. If a new active cultural centre is being created next to a historic institution that itself originated as an active centre of culture, education, and civic engagement, should we not first ask whether we have revitalised what history has already left us?

Likewise, the current works and interventions being carried out in the immediate vicinity of the Ethnographic Museum and the former “Labëria” Club require full public information regarding their nature and function.

If any element of the project is intended to reconstruct or evoke a historic synagogue, on what documentary, cartographic, or archaeological evidence are its location and form based? If, instead, it is a new architectural or museological element, that too should be stated clearly.

There is a fundamental distinction between the restoration of a historic structure, reconstruction based on documented evidence, and the creation of a new element intended to symbolise or interpret a history.

All may be legitimate museological choices. But they are not the same thing.

What we build today may itself become a reference tomorrow for how future generations read the past. We therefore bear responsibility not only for what we preserve, but also for what we create today as memory for tomorrow.

Civic Debate Deserves to Be Heard, Not Labelled

I see the civic reaction surrounding this project, first and foremost, as an exercise of the public’s right to be informed, to express its views, and to be heard on matters affecting the city and its heritage.

In this sense, I support it as a legitimate civic act, without claiming to share every individual opinion or argument expressed within it.

For precisely this reason, I do not believe that concerns or objections regarding a project should, as a whole, be interpreted as antisemitism or as incitement to interethnic conflict. Antisemitism is a serious matter, and every concrete manifestation of it should be treated as such.

But it is precisely the seriousness of the term that requires it not to be applied indiscriminately to questions concerning a project, its location, an architectural intervention, or a museological concept.

The history of relations between Albanians and Jews — of hospitality, coexistence and, particularly, protection in the most difficult moments — gives us ample reason to conduct this debate calmly and with mutual respect.

This history should not be used to close today’s debate. It should give us the confidence to engage in it.

Respect for Jewish history and care for Vlora’s historical heritage are not mutually exclusive positions.

An Invitation to Transparency, Reflection, and Reconsideration

Decisions have been made and the works have begun. But this does not make reflection too late, nor reconsideration impossible. We are dealing with a heritage that does not belong only to the present.

I therefore propose the publication and clear presentation of the complete project — architectural, structural, and museological — as well as a public hearing in which historians, architects, museologists, heritage specialists, organisations, and citizens can be heard.

Such a process would not weaken decision-making. On the contrary, it would make it better informed.

Perhaps full information would clarify some of the concerns.

Perhaps some would prove unfounded.

Perhaps others would identify elements that need to be corrected.

And perhaps the reconsideration itself would show that another solution could better serve all the values we seek to protect.

That is precisely what dialogue is for.

I am not proposing that we remove one history in order to preserve another. I am proposing that we seek a solution that allows us to preserve and enrich as much as possible of what we already have.

Let us preserve the Sharraj House and the integrity of the historic ensemble.

Let us preserve and revitalise the Ethnographic Museum and the “Labëria” Club, restoring to the latter its active cultural, educational, and civic role.

Let us document with dignity the Jewish presence and the history of Albanian-Jewish relations.

Let us revitalise the Street of the Jews and the authentic places connected with this memory.

Let us connect these places through an itinerary that extends history across the city rather than artificially concentrating it at a single point.

Let us distinguish clearly between what is historic heritage and what we create today in order to interpret it.

And let us not place the histories of Vlora in competition with one another.

The part should enrich the whole, not replace or overshadow it.

Vlora does not need to choose between its memories. It needs to recognise them, preserve them, and place them in the proper relationship with one another. Because heritage has not been given to us so that we may choose which parts of it to preserve. It has been entrusted to us so that we may pass it on.

Let us preserve it. Let us bring it back to life. And let us enrich it without losing what we already have. With respect and confidence,

Luiza Hoxhaj

Citizen of Vlora

---

[i] Most recently, Master Vendim Kapaj performed the pastoral melodies for the film Odysseus.