The condition of political opportunity

We are told that people in Kosovo are very political and politicized, that all social life is organized around debates and discussions about politics. But what if the opposite is true? What if passionate discussions about politics are just a form of compensation for the lack of real political life?

How should the upcoming parliamentary elections in Kosovo be understood? This period of time, normally, is the time to raise some questions and dilemmas about this process, which is rightfully being considered as a historical moment and opportunity for the country.

The Democratic Party of Kosovo has governed Kosovo since 2002 (except for the years 2004-2008). From this long period of government, three mandates were made possible by the Democratic League of Kosovo. This co-governance, expressed and manifested in the form of mutual interdependence between these two political parties, is not accidental, or conditioned by the situations and conditions to which they necessarily had to submit. This relationship between PDK and LDK is structurally conditioned, and is not reduced to a matter of the will of leaders, candidates or the like. In the last instance of the analysis, the political existence of the PDK is conditioned by that of the LDK, and vice versa.

Politics, insofar as it is such, is not reducible to administration and the possible variations of correct, proper, effective, honest or any other administration. Politics is above all a battle. This makes politics politics. It is a battle of positions, ideas and thoughts. As such, it is not reducible to the sophist definition, expressed through the expression common sense, as the art of the possible. Because sophistry is common sense. Political battles take place on the premise and basis of ideological positions, which are then condensed and represented in the form of parties or other political structures. And this is essential, because politics is positioning and a battle of ideas, and not as claimed by a former deputy, who understood politics as an aesthetic field, in the sense of aesthetic de-essentialization, where the concept of the militant was branded as primitivism and ideological excess which should be given up as soon as possible. Thus, he spoke as if he were a pop star addressing fans who, in his imagination, were desperate. This approach epitomizes what politics is not. And, in fact, he (and others like him) know this, because since politics is always-already an ideological practice, stable positions in it are essential. What he (and others like him) called militancy, is the basis in ideological principles, which do not allow others to travel through political parties every election season - and sometimes even more often.

Thus, the battle between PDK and LDK, in the last instance, is not a political battle, but an administrative one (which also includes the economic dimension of private accumulation, but that is another topic). And as such, it is politically barren and unproductive. Finally, discussions on administrative issues are not even at the level of parliamentary discussion. Both these parties are in the same ideological positions. They say that they are oriented as a center-right party. Politics, if it is, is the collective practice of impossibility. Action in the domain of possibility is action in the administrative space, already organized by a predetermined ideological instance. When an ideological orientation is political, that goal has the impossibility of the present, that which from the perspective of actuality seems impossible, but that the change of this same status of impossibility is the beginning of a new political cycle. Changing the status of impossibility is not an activity in the field of imagination and fantasy (eg of the biblical nature of turning water into wine), but of the most sensitive points in the ideological edifice of the respective society. In the time of President Obama, the debate about Obamacare touched the most sensitive points of the American illusion of "freedom of choice", or the plan of the former Greek Minister of Finance for the rescheduling of the Greek external debt called into question the whole belief (of course wrong ) of the EU for financial austerity as the only way for budget consolidation and economic recovery. And so on.

Hope and its revival

We are told that people in Kosovo are very political and politicized, that all social life is organized around debates and discussions about politics. But what if the opposite is true? What if passionate discussions about politics are just a form of compensation for the lack of real political life? Such debates and discussions are only technical, because they exist in the field of administrative politics, reducible to statistical calculations of electoral percentages, arithmetical combinations of possible coalitions, etc. Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant distinguished between private and public use of reason. According to him, the first is reduced to dogmatic charges of contingency, in which we act as individuals, and thus are not part of the universality of reason. For Kant, each public position (in government, in administration) is an application of private reason. In other words, administrative politics is the hindrance to the progress of enlightenment.

Kosovo's political, economic and social challenges are irreducible in this space. In order to face them, it is necessary to enter the field of public use of reason, and this means a complete separation from administrative politics. What does this mean?

The race for the October 6 elections is focused on the names and figures of the candidates for prime minister. This in itself is not a bad thing, because in the end, the prime minister is the driving force behind the implementation of the government plan and program. But the special name only makes sense as long as he/she has a program behind him/herself. And here lies the problem: apart from the Vetëvendosje Movement, which has both the program and the leader, the other parties are reducible to the second one, and some already have only female candidates for prime minister, who is not a leader, and has no governing political program. The candidate for prime minister of the LDK seems to be the most consistent expression of the administrative logic of governance, a symptom of the private use of reason, expressed in arithmetical discussions. So far, what we know about the LDK candidate, about her vision for politics, economy, education, health, energy, culture, etc. expressed in her (principled) opposition to President Thaçi. And that's the end of her vision - at least, as seen in public, during the public gatherings she's holding.

However, if you look at the public support she gives to world leaders, the picture is not so white anymore. When Boris Johnson won the election in the Conservative party of Britain, and thus became the prime minister of the country, his political and democratic legitimacy was non-existent. He won the race within the party (more than 160.000 voters) in a state with over 66 million inhabitants, and "inherited" the prime minister's mandate from the former prime minister. So, he did not win the election. Johnson stands politically for what is today the lowest level of ethics, manners, and ideological orientation in general. He was one of the most active in the Brexit campaign, after taking office he closed the British Parliament, to make it impossible to debate Brexit without an agreement and eventually the vote of no confidence; he stands for the privatization of every public and state asset, including the health system, the police, and so on. Ms. Osmani publicly supported his appointment as prime minister and this raises tremendous concerns for the country's political future. It is very important to know if she is behind Johnson's political vision, in relation to the EU, privatizations, etc. Cacophony and political disparity in the country's vital issues are a guarantee of chaotic administrative governance.

The argument often used in favor of her candidacy (and by the way, the candidates of the other two coalitions for prime minister are not even worth discussing) is biological: she is a woman, and as such she deserves our support , and especially of women. But isn't gender essentialization, binary logic, a deeply patriarchal position? Gender is not a prerequisite of feminism, because being a feminist, above all and first of all, means a political position in the economy. Her sociopolitical model seems to be that of Margaret Thatcher, who was declaratively a feminist. But the consequences of its neoliberal policies were devastating, especially for women, e.g. in issues of housing, discrimination in employment, unequal income. Moreover, even Sarah Palin declares herself a feminist. So much for biology-based feminism, in this contingent accident of birth.

French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan says that woman does not exist (la femme n'existe pas), thus giving the ultimate definition of feminism. Precisely by criticizing the traditional approach of binary logic, he asserts that woman has no signifier, and as such, transforms her into a non-identity subject, irreducible to particular identities (because identities are only particular). As such, woman is in the space of universality.

Therefore, these parliamentary elections are of essential importance for the country. In these elections, it will not only be decided for a "normal" democratic rotation of powers, but first of all and above all, it will be decided for the type of power and governance. Will it be the continuation of the current administrative logic, or will it be the beginning of a (long, but necessary) socio-economic and political transformation? Dissociation with the course of events and the current situation is not done by continuing the logic of administrative governance (perhaps with a different face, but how different is, in the last instance, the "other" face?). Separation is done only politically, with a political program and vision. The separation from the neoliberal project of the economy, politics and society in general is done with a comprehensive social democratic project.

(The author is a Doctor of Philosophy)