• Early elections in Kosovo, in themselves, are not a problem. On the contrary, the fact that they are used to resolve political contradictions and are kept within an institutional order is indicative of an advanced level of democracy.
• But the problem starts when elections are repeated within a very short time. When elections are held a few months after the previous ones, without changing anything essential—in education, health, economy, security or foreign policy—then they are no longer an instrument for solving social problems. The political offers remain the same, and with them the lack of new solutions.
• Instead, the country enters elections to resolve conflicts produced by party interests. This is legitimate—the parties have the right to protect their interests. But it must be said clearly: there were no procedural or constitutional obstacles that prevented the election of the president. The main obstacle has been the lack of political will.
• Under these circumstances, the upcoming elections risk being more of a race to blame the other than to offer solutions. And this has a predictable result: more polarization, less room for common interest.
Although the list of reasons for concern is, as can be seen, longer, I am marking three of them that receive major space, that were produced in these four months of the year and for which there is a lack of a common finding in the public space:
1. Lack of consensus at a critical global moment
We live in a world that is experiencing the most dramatic changes since the fall of the Berlin Wall. At such a time, political parties would have to choose consensus instead of competition. There was a lack of will for consensus; has gained the will to run for election.
The citizen of Kosovo has reason to be worried when the party race is placed over the interest of the country.
2. Relativization of the Constitution in the process of its amendment
On March 5, 2026, the Assembly of Kosovo discussed the constitutional amendments based on the proposal of the president. The initiative may have had political or emotional impetus, but it did not have sufficient procedural support nor political consensus. However, the Assembly legitimized this process, lowering the threshold of seriousness for a matter of primary importance such as the amendment of the Constitution.
The citizen of Kosovo has reason to be worried when the highest institutions approach the fundamental act of the state with frivolity.
3. Political normalization of the constitutional violation
On March 6, the country’s president dissolved the Assembly, making the most serious violation of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo so far. This act was assessed by the Constitutional Court of Kosovo as unsupported by the Constitution, thus without legal effect, but this did not avoid the political effect, because such an action did not receive the unanimous condemnation of the public sphere and political parties in particular.
The citizen of Kosovo has reason to be concerned with the ease with which such a serious violation was politically legitimized by a part of the political spectrum and did not receive a clear and common punishment.
If these three developments remain without a common reflection and without a clear dividing line between the acceptable and the unacceptable, then the elections will not be a solution, but a continuation of the crisis by other means. Democracy is not measured only by the fact that a vote is taken, but by the respect of the rules on which the vote is taken. And without a minimum consensus on these rules, that is, on the limits of power, on the role of the Constitution and on the seriousness of the institutions, every election cycle risks producing the same one we have today.
