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.