The talks between media representatives and the government, which began in January, ended ceremonially when Dean Mark Marku, on behalf of the Faculty of Journalism, in the role of impartial negotiator, submitted to the Assembly, a few days ago, the summary of the discussions - a forty-page material of recommendations - with the aim of later transforming them into legal amendments.
The talks began in January, where dozens of journalists and representatives of national media organizations and platforms, with the encouragement and support of representatives of the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe (CE), together with the Faculty, were involved for "Promoting Freedom of Expression in Albania through Open Dialogue”, a discussion platform, between the government and the media community, to improve legislation related to freedom of expression, access to information, the safety of journalists, and media ownership and independence
The faculty undertook, for the first time, to “facilitate” an extremely difficult relationship, aggravated over the years, between the government and journalists. Marku assured that the discussions would not be decided by anyone. He demanded a credible process and broad-based involvement, as a guarantee of success. The government was represented by Elona Bano, director of Integration at the Ministry of Justice.
Invited to the key meeting, the EU Delegation Ambassador Silvio Gonzato promised more than a hearing: the development of a dialogue. “People have been skeptical, asking – why this platform –, so this will not be an imposed, top-down approach,” he was careful to specify.
Over the following months, ten roundtable discussions were held, until last week the recommendations were submitted to the Albanian Parliament.
What will happen next? No one can say for sure. There is no guarantee that the recommendations can be “transposed” into legal amendments. First, they have not been presented in a final form, which will require even more work to process them. Other experts can be called in, of course, but this may take time. In fact, several weeks have been lost, since the submission should have been made earlier, as early as August. Second, there are dozens of recommendations, which lack hierarchy. Dean Marku warned from the beginning that it was a comprehensive process, implying equal assessment of every suggestion made at the discussion tables. We can say that so far, the process has been successful: all suggestions agreed upon during the discussions were incorporated into the final material, in the form of recommendations. Bano, the representative from the Ministry of Justice, in cooperation with the Ministry of Public Administration and Anti-Corruption, also reflected the same agreement. It should be emphasized – a collaboration to be praised. But the risk of undoing is real, although the journey has begun and it is difficult for anyone to be sidelined.
"Whatever happens, we must work on our recommendations," explains Marku, "and they cannot be changed. We will request that the Faculty continue to monitor the process even during the phase of preparing amendments in the Assembly," he assures.
So far there has been no response from the Assembly. RECOMMENDATIONS are on another table: the table of the Commission on Human Rights and Public Media. It will take a few more days before a decision is made on their further treatment.
“Our philosophy is that the process should be more important than the result,” Marku declared at the first meeting in January. But should we also worry about the result? In any case, the process has never been the goal. Through the faculty, the platform has been thought of as more acceptable to interest groups – a clever and fruitful tactic by those who conceived this initiative: the EU-EC. But the further progress is unclear even for them. Their representatives did not respond to a request for information regarding concerns about the further processing of the recommendations in the Assembly. Their follow-up to the Assembly does not insinuate any obligation, except that it reiterates support “for the advancement of freedom of expression and the improvement of the media environment in Albania.”
But are the recommendations binding on the Assembly? The short and direct answer is “No!”. A member’s vote is part of his individual sovereignty and cannot be subordinated to any other power. Often, governments (the Balkan ones to a greater extent) take advantage of the convenience offered by Western parliamentary principles and traditions. However, these principles do not serve governments in particular, but primarily the people. Thus, in a broader and more democratic sense, freedom of expression, which permeates every cell of the recommendations in question, enjoys constitutional protection, the respect for which cannot be conditioned solely by the political will of a select group. Above all, a spirit in favor of freedom of expression prevails, or to be realistic – should prevail – a spirit in favor of freedom of expression. The tired socialist government may not care about freedom of expression, except to brush its window, aiming to profit in its name, but in the meantime, as a member state of the Council of Europe, Albania is obliged not only to respect, but also to guarantee this freedom.
According to the Commission's (EC) assessment in each of the last four years, Albania ranks number one for freedom of expression. Report on the level of fulfillment of the membership criteria confirmed the same anomaly. A year has passed since the opening of the first group of chapters of the negotiations and by 2027 the parties have pledged to close them all. Whatever the impression, or feeling, the government must move. Bureaucratic stagnation can complicate the deadlines of the negotiations. But above all, it is about substantive objectives.
In about 40 pages of recommendations sent to the Assembly, it is requested to increase the safety of journalists, improve their working conditions, increase transparency and access to information; deepen the independence and pluralism of the media; transparency and integrity of the AMA. This is a major intervention, not just a principled stance, but for concrete interventions in the relevant legislation: in the law on the right to information, in the Labor Code, in the Criminal Procedure Code and in the Criminal Code, in the approximation with some of the relevant directives, but also with the signing of memoranda, agreements, procedures and manuals necessary for the functioning of the media.
"The launch of the structured dialogue between Albanian institutions and media actors was a positive development," Gonzato said last week, at a joint conference with Prime Minister Rama, during the presentation of the report on Albania, "but" - he concluded, "further efforts are needed...".
It is understood that further efforts belong to the government. Rama may not want to, but he does not have time. This is the moment for the media to take as much as possible. Not by speculating, but by regaining what was stolen from them, arbitrarily. Political power may lose something, but the media will be strengthened; the country and the European aspirations, too. Isn't that the goal?
However, even if they don't back down, the media is used to staying put. And no one should forget that!
Artan Rama is a freelance journalist and producer who lives in Tirana. He won the second EU award for investigative journalism in 2016 and the third award in 2022. He has long been involved in reporting environmental crime stories, natural resource exploitation and sustainable development issues.
