‘Shqipëria Bëhet’ is a rather oblique phrase without a direct translation. Its meaning is best understood as ‘Albania will make something of itself’ or ‘Albania will become what it should be’. It is a thoroughly optimistic statement and the name of the political movement founded by attorney Adriatik Lapaj and fellow activists in September 2023.
Perhaps most prominently, it is a response to its much more common antonym: ‘Shqipëria nuk bëhet’, or ‘Albania will never make something of itself.’ This motto is equal parts a statement of frustration and a genuine belief held by a large segment of society.
There could hardly be a more fitting title for Adriatik Lapaj’s venture into prominence in Albanian politics. Having begun his activism at age 22, he has intensified his efforts over the past 14 years as the society around him has grown ever more apathetic and suspicious. Emblematic of this was his long drive to clean the coast of his Southern hometown of Saranda of tires and other waste, derided by some as a sign of naivete.
Despite the omnipresent societal suspicions, he has made significant headway in public opinion, with a recent poll posted by Euronews Albania finding that 40.8% of participants had a positive perception of him. This is by far the largest figure among the leaders of the new political movements that have sprung outside of the Democratic and Socialist Party duopoly which, alongside Ilir Meta’s Freedom Party, have dominated the post-communist political system these last 33 years. Doubtlessly, the excitement behind these new movements is fueled by their perception as fresh faces uninvolved in the corruption associated with previous governments.
With the 2025 parliamentary elections on the horizon, Albania finds itself at a consequential political crossroads. The question for many is whether these new movements, also including Arlind Qori’s Lëvizja Bashkë (Together Movement) and Endrit Shabani’s Nisma Thurje (Hashtag Initiative) will be able to enter parliament and herald the beginning of a new age. However these developments unfold, it seems certain that Adriatik Lapaj will play a major role.
The following conversation took place on a gloomy day in early July at the movement’s headquarters in central Tirana. It has since been translated from the original Albanian and sparsely edited for length and clarity.
Mr. Lapaj, hello.
Hello.
You and I share a few striking similarities. We both hail from the Southern region of Saranda. We are both sons of two honorable police officers in whom we take great pride. Yet our stories diverge significantly. I immigrated to the United States as a child, while you have chosen to stay and build your life In Albania. What, in your view, does Albania offer its youth for it to stay here and what can be done if the current unsustainable rates of emigration are to be reformed?
Thank you for the question. In fact, the difference between us was not a product of our choices. Just as you immigrating to America was not a decision of yours, it was initially not my decision to stay in this country, either. In both cases, the choice was made by our parents. I emphasize this to highlight how important parents' engagement is in relation to their children's future, how important the engagement of the active part of society is, of the youth who is active in the labor force and who births a new generation. This is the sector that leads and is the driving force behind a society.
In this aspect, serious mistakes have been made during the post-communist transition. I hold our parents in high esteem, and here I mean not only those of us two but their entire generation. This is because they had to sacrifice themselves in the name of a better future for us, but the mistake they made was that they remained political partisans. They sacrificed and worked a lot, yet at the end of the day, they remained partisans when it came to the important political decisions that were to be made. Someone went with the principle: "My grandfather was a Ballist [member of the National Front during World War II] so I support the right wing" while someone else with "My grandfather was a communist, so I'm with the left." This has been the history that has absolved the thieves of the right and the left alikeand has brought Albania to a low point that we cannot accept.
What can society do now? The difference now is that our generation is practically society's new driving force because we are now parents and we have the next twenty years or so to lead society in its processes. We must understand that our behavior will dictate our children's future, just as our parents' behavior did with ours. In this aspect, we must learn from the mistakes of our parents' generation and not remain political partisans. Often I hear the sentiment: "I don't get involved in politics." No, you do, you just don't understand it. Precisely by not getting involved, you are involved in politics. Why is that? Because politics is involved in your life. It is involved through its decisions, from the morning when you get up to wash your face in the sink because that water is taxed according to a political decision that has been made somewhere. This goes well into the evening when you turn off the lights before you sleep because energy prices are also the consequence of a political decision.
This is to say that claiming that you are not involved in politics is the worst mistake you can make because you are involved precisely by not taking part. How? You allow those who make decisions to make the wrong ones for you, your children, your family and the future of the entire country. So we must learn from the mistakes of the past and understand that in politics, citizens must be pragmatic. Politics is a contract. I give you my trust for four years, if you do not respect it, you go on about your business and I will establish a contract with a new person or movement.
One of the things you have said that has stuck with me is that politics is also a moral code. So is it a contract from the perspective of the citizen, meaning that you should choose the most able candidate and a moral code for the elected official, or both at the same time?
It is both at the same time. Pope Francis gave an interesting speech, quite extraordinary, at the beginning of the war in Ukraine, where he spoke about politics. I am not paraphrasing it exactly here but merely giving the general gist. He says that politics has become stigmatized as the profession of liars because of how it has been misused. But in fact it ought to be, and in principle it is, the profession of extraordinary people who give themselves up to serve their communities and societies. The most important thing we have in life is time and, under the understanding of the politician as someone honorable, they consume their own time in the service of society.
The problem is that societies have different stages of development. I believe that politics is a contractual agreement but that it is above all a moral code. I think this is how it ought to be and that this is proven true by the history of mankind. Singapore has politicians, too, but it transformed from the third poorest country in the world in 1959 to the top ten countries in terms of economic growth in 1989. Today it is on top of the world economically, with extraordinary income per capita, even higher than that of the giant developed economies. Switzerland has politicians, too, but it has a different standard of living than, say, the Balkan countries. There are politicians in Sweden but it has produced a well-being distinctly higher than that of the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is considered one of the most resource-rich countries in the world. Japan has politicians, too, but it is the poorest country in the world in terms of natural resources yet it is first in the world when it comes to raising the value of its minerals through its refinement processes. That shows that the important bit is how these resources are used, how they are managed.
Politics in my mind is like nuclear energy: it depends on what you use it for. Nuclear energy does not constitute a problem in and of itself, the problem lies in how it is used. If you use it to produce electricity, you translate that to growth, prosperity and wealth for your citizens. If nuclear energy is used to destroy, it sows suffering, misery and death. Both of these come from the same source.
Politics is much the same. If you use it toward good ends, you enrich the lives of nations, if you use it towards ill ends, you destroy them.
One of the issues you have been most involved with is the rather appalling phenomenon of doctors in public hospitals breaking medical tools to drive patients toward private hospitals, where they will have to pay exorbitant prices – with those very doctors receiving a cut of those profits. This seems like a problem that goes well beyond official corruption but concerns societal codes and a lack of a sense of duty to one another. I asked Kosova's Prime Minister Albin Kurti a question about corruption last year and he made a very interesting distinction. According to him, in Kosova corruption remained rather isolated to the higher levels of government, whereas in Albania it has penetrated every level of society. Do you agree with this diagnosis and, if so, what role should the government play in combatting issues which also concern morality without overreaching? How can this type of policy be effective?
From the theoretical lens, there are two types of corruption: vertical and horizontal. Vertical corruption does not spread to all social strata but remains in the high, directing levels. On the other hand, horizontal corruption is that which has spread in all segments and levels of society, making it even more endemic and difficult to combat. Albania has been tainted by horizontal corruption, which means that it has penetrated every level of society, from the guard at the entrance of the institution to the prime minister of the country.
But nothing is incurable when it comes to the organization of the state. As corruption begins, so it can be fought. With Albania’s horizontal corruption, the fight is much tougher because it has polluted and deformed society but there is always a solution.
I am reminded of a story about Napoleon Bonaparte, who, upon learning that there was extraordinary corruption in his system, called up his government and ordered his finance minister to double wages. After six months, he received a report that the change in corruption levels was negligible. He calls up his government again and demands that wages be doubled again. After six months, he called up his government and saw that reports concluded that 70-80% of the justice system now functioned honorably, no longer engaging in corruption.
This was the point of satiation, meaning the point at which the normal people in that society who worked in the justice system could lead normal lives without having to resort to corruption. Then, the minister of justice reminded him that 20-30% of judges and prosecutors still took part in corruption. His answer was simple: "These ones to the guillotine." This means that after society had reached the point of leading normal lives, those for whom corruption had become a vice had to be punished by the force of the law.
How do you fight corruption in Albania? By building a state that does not "hide behind its finger", that pays wages allowing those who work for the government to live with dignity. Afterward, all those for whom corruption has become a vice have to be hit mercilessly with the force of the law. That is the solution.
The most common conception of modern Albanian politics is that the electorate used to be revolted at the state of affairs but has now devolved to a dangerous new low: apathy, a process which you have described yourself. This, of course, leads to mass distrust and is a difficult phenomenon to tackle. Do you see it as feasible for this to be reversed, for the public to regain a level of trust in the political system similar to the one enjoyed at the beginning of the democratic system in the early 1990s?
This makes it very difficult for our generation because people have been burned before and are now distrustful of the new, precisely because they once had so much faith. By putting so much faith and being disappointed, it has become a mission bordering on the impossible. Change can now only be made through resilience. We must win society's trust step by step and by advancing by centimeters at a time; there is no other route. We can only follow the approach of Winston Churchill, who said: "If you're going through hell, keep going." We are at a phase where our society is going through hell and we must not stop, we must keep going.
Gjergj Fishta has a famous saying about how difficult it is for Albanians to unite, which is often used in a political context. It seems that lately it has been quite difficult for the elements of the new opposition, amongst which according to the numbers your force may be the largest, to unite. Why do you think this is the case and is it necessary for the new political forces to be united for a fundamental change in the system?
I am always for a union of values, but the issue is that unions must be natural, not mechanical. I value even a single individual as if he were the entire Republic because I do not believe in numbers but in individuals. I mean this in the sense that society must generate well-being for each of us, not just most of us.
But the reality is that in a free world, each one has the freedom to think as he sees fit. We can not peer into anyone's heart and intentions but we begin from the ideals on which we function and that which people express. I am for any kind of union with those about whom there is no evidence of corruption but this must come as a natural union, not as a mechanical one because sometimes we create unnecessary entanglements. If you are at 30% and the other person is at 2% we cannot say that they did not unite because that would be relativizing the situation. It cannot be perceived as the same thing for both parties because the one who is at 2% must take the objectives of the one who holds 30% into account because he represents a majority.
So I am open to cooperation with anyone who is not perceived as, or about whom there is no evidence, of being corrupt but we must unite on principles, not on narrow agreements. We have not held, do not hold and will never hold any negotiations with anyone looking after personal interests of the "give me this and I'll give you that" type. No.
That which unites or divides us is principles, which means: are we for the opening of the electoral system, competition, meritocracy? Two, are we for the law for referendums so that accountability will be returned to the people? Three, are we for immigrants' right to vote? Four, are we for the depoliticization of the electoral administration? Five, are we for repealing the law on concessions?
What logic is there to a government, which has been given a mandate or a "contract" for four years, to sign concessions extending to 30, 40, 50 years? Who are you? You have been mandated for four years, how can you make decisions that run 50 years, including 12 governments after you?
Of course, I am in support of long-term concessions as there are companies that make such large investments that cannot do so with a five-year contract. But the manner of approving the concessions must reflect that and it cannot be done by a minority.
This means that if a concession runs for five years, a government can approve it because it is essentially within its four-year mandate. If it runs for 10 years, the parliament can approve it with a simple majority because it is presupposed that half of the parliament should have the vision necessary. But if the concession runs for 15 years the parliament must approve it with a 3/5 vote, meaning a qualified majority, so that the consensus reaches beyond a single party. If the concession extends beyond 15 years, thus deciding for multiple generations, the parliament must approve it by a constitutional majority, meaning a 2/3 vote.
This is the methodology that makes it possible for public assets to be administered in a healthy manner. Whoever is in agreement with this, we are open. Whoever, on the other hand, places conditions along the lines of "we want this or that", that then spoils our formula because it returns us to the old style of politics.
I wanted to get specifically to Albania as seen from the outside, which you touched on with the vote of the immigrants. Firstly, do you see it as plausible for Albanians in the diaspora to vote in the general elections next year? Secondly, what do you make of the argument that since immigrants do not pay taxes and may not understand the political reality in Albania very well, it does not make sense for them to vote?
I think that as long as there is a Constitutional Court decision and Article 45, Item 1 of the Constitution specifies that all Albanian citizens have the right to elect and be elected, this discussion flies in the face of the Constitution and the Court. In a republic, the constitutional court is the organ that separates the wheat from the chaff when it comes to constitutional interpretation.
Taking this approach, if our Republic holds elections that disregard a Constitutional Court decision, it is holding an unconstitutional election that cannot stand regardless of the results. Even if we win the government of this country in the upcoming elections, they will be considered unconstitutional by us first because they were carried out against a decision of the Constitutional Court. We have to create a culture and an understanding that if the state does not follow its own orders, there is no way its citizens can.
Think about the Parliament not respecting a decision of the Constitutional Court, then a policeman in the peripheries of the country demanding that someone obey the decision of a regular court. It just can’t happen.
The influence of the United States in shaping the modern Balkans is undoubtable. Its accomplishments in the Albanian space, from standing up for Albania’s independence at the 1920 Paris Peace Conference and Kosova’s independence in 2008 and its role in the continuing fight against corruption are well-known. Apart from these headline issues, what do you think American foreign policy in the Balkans does well and where does it fail?
I say this neither out of servility nor conformism but I think that we live in a reality which is not ideal — if it were ideal we would be in heaven, not Earth. The reality in which we live includes intrigues, crimes against humanity, violence, robbery, and suppression of the weak from the smallest cell of society to the state and international levels.
In this vicious world we must understand our country’s weight and abilities. I consider it a fortune that the United States of America, which is the world’s greatest democracy despite all of the problems it might have, has put forth an approach that includes us in this block of democracies and allied states. Because it could easily be the opposite, it could also not welcome us because they can do without us. So we must understand our weight and the position we occupy. This does not mean we should kowtow or become servile but that we must understand reality as it is.
In this direction, we must not forget the history we come from and the three key moments when the United States stood on the side of the Albanian people. The first moment was with President Wilson and his Fourteen Points on the self-determination of small nations, which enabled the Albania we have today to survive. The second moment was the War in Kosova, when against all obstacles and international judicial regimes, President Clinton decided to intervene in Kosova in the name of humanitarianism, including against every barrier presented by the United Nations Security Council because of the veto of other nations.
When Slobodan Milošević and his troops committed atrocities like slashing the stomachs of Albanian pregnant women with his bayonets and the Albanians of Kosova fled for their lives, that nation [the United States] stood in its defense. Without that nation, today Kosova would be a geographic notion where Albanians once lived.
The third moment is Albania’s integration into NATO. We all, or at least most of us, are aware that Albania does not have a military capable of being a part of the most powerful military alliance in the world. We simply do not have a force of those parameters. But we are in the alliance as a consequence of a political decision taken by the United States and, concretely, President George W. Bush, to take Albania under the protection of this alliance from every danger that it faces. In this sense, the gratitude we must have toward that nation must be immeasurable and reflect an understanding that without them we would be facing very serious problems.
Let us finish with a few more personal questions. If you had 28 hours in a day, how would you spend the extra time?
Time is my biggest scarcity. With that extra time, I would work even more on this mission which I began 14 years ago, a mission to which I have dedicated my most beautiful years, those of youth. I began it at 22 and I am now 36. Until I complete it, everything is in its function. This is deeply unfair to my family members but this is both the misfortune and fortune of living with idealists. The misfortune is that they cannot fully go through life with them, while the fortune is that they are close to someone who truly believes in something in life.
What are three books that have helped form you, be they about Albania or not?
Those that have left a mark on me are “The Power of the Powerless” by Vaclav Havel, “World Politics” by Charles W. Kegley, Jr. and most importantly, the book which is 80% of who I am, “Meditations” by Marcus Aurelius. These are the three I would highlight as to my formation but also in which I found myself the most. It is not quite that they formed me but rather that I understood and materialized my background through them. I would recommend that absolutely everyone read Aurelius' “Meditations” at least three times in their lives.
Since Ismail Kadare passed away yesterday, any works from Albanian literature?
Kadare is Kadare, even with all the personal contradictions he may have had because no one is perfect. One can be a genius at his craft and still have his own problems. Kadare is someone who deserves a sense of gratitude from us all for the dignity he gave Albanians throughout the world with the incredible works he left behind.
From our literature, I would highlight Ernest Koliqi, yet ultimately I would have to go with Petro Marko. He was a free soul and continues to be one where he is up there. He was a national treasure who lived in freedom until the end, never accepting either the occupying dictatorships of the Second World War or the native one that followed it. He was a great Albanian who had the ability to leave behind a true literary testament, which is “Interview with Myself” (Intervistë me Vetveten), where as early as 70-80 years ago he was able to document the origins of the inhabitants and tribes of the Bay of Himara. Through dialogue, he dissects the question: who are we and to whom do we belong?*
Finally, what is it about Albania that makes you keep fighting in its name, as incredibly difficult as this journey promises to be?
There are thousands of reasons but the main one behind why I have not given up and continue to fight is that this is where my ancestors rest. This is the strongest connection I have with Albania. It is the country for which my great-grandfather fell as a martyr, for which my grandparents fought in the mountains and in which they rest. Someone who has no connection to or regard for their forebears is to me a biological being who eats and excretes but does not accomplish much else in life. So my inextricable bond to this land are the resting places of my forefathers.
Is there a quality or trait of the Albanians that you would highlight?
I would say we have a considerable ability not to lose our identity. Even though there has been some chaos in this transition to democracy, there is a very interesting phenomenon that even when we have changed names and religion we have not ceded our identity, but took on the additions as temporary. This means that the need to survive has made us take up these things but we have never lost our connection to our origins.
For example, we have a hero in the South whose name is Idriz Alidhima. Idriz, Ali (Muslim names) and Dhima (Orthodox). He has kept these all in his name because he had to convert yet he maintained who he was. Or the Mosque of Gjin Aleks. At the same time a mosque, yet of Gjin, a Catholic name and Aleks, an Orthodox name.
National identity and language form a very powerful dimension. I don’t know about other nations but they do amongst us. We have suffered over centuries but have managed not to be erased and I would classify this as a quality. A nation which has been attacked and deformed yet survived over millennia, that is no small feat.
Many would mention besa (the tradition of honor and oath-keeping) but I would not go down that route because each nation has its faithful and its traitors. This is the truth: we have many documented traitors in our history, from Dhimitër Fari in the Illyro-Roman Wars to Hamza Kastrioti in the Ottoman Wars and so on. But the biggest ability is the one to survive, which we have gained through centuries of hardship.
Mr. Lapaj, thank you.
Thank you.
* The Himara Bay has long been at the center of a dispute as to whether its population is of Albanian or Greek origin. The author Petro Marko, a native of the region, asserts that the population is of Albanian descent.
Comments