When EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos stood next to Prime Minister Edi Rama in Tirana and declared that the 11 May elections in Albania were “free and fair,” the sentence landed like a political bomb.
Not because Albania had just gone through a textbook democratic exercise – but because the official OSCE/ODIHR report describes almost the opposite.
According to that report, the 11 May parliamentary elections were marked by serious democratic distortions: systematic misuse of state resources, pressure on voters and public employees, an overwhelmingly pro-government media environment, and a deeply unlevel playing field. The picture painted is not of a consolidated democracy, but of a state apparatus that too often serves the ruling party rather than the citizen.
Yet in Tirana, the EU’s public message was reduced to a reassuring slogan: “The elections were free and fair.”
This gap between the technical diagnosis and the political messaging is not a semantic nuance. It goes to the heart of what “European standards” are supposed to mean for a candidate country like Albania.
When “Free and Fair” Ignores the Fine Print
The OSCE/ODIHR findings, as reported, are stark:
- Manipulation of the context rather than the ballot box – a pattern of vote conditioning, misuse of administrative resources and pressure on vulnerable groups.
- Public administration drawn into the campaign, with local officials mobilised for political objectives and voters made to feel observed rather than protected.
- Media capture and imbalance, where major TV stations overwhelmingly favoured the ruling party, while the public broadcaster acted in a visibly pro-government manner.
- Regulatory failure in the digital sphere, with opaque online spending, unregulated political advertising and a temporary ban on TikTok during the campaign – a move that raised serious questions about freedom of expression.
This is not the architecture of an election that fully reflects the free will of the voter. It is the choreography of a system where the outcome may be technically recognised, but the pathway to that result is laden with pressure, dependency and fear.
In that context, a Brussels soundbite that upgrades such a contest to “free and fair” is more than just clumsy. It risks becoming politically complicit.
A Prison Vote And The Myth Of Normality
Albania’s problems are not abstract. They leave traces – sometimes brutally clear ones.
It is difficult to talk about “free elections” when, in at least one prison polling station, a newcomer candidate reportedly emerged as the most voted name – not just popular, but 100 percent endorsed. When a first-time candidate sweeps a closed institution with a perfect score, the alarm bell is not “enthusiasm.” It is coercion.
Patterns like this are signatures of a system where the voter’s choice is not simply persuaded, but controlled. They suggest invisible hierarchies, pressures and deals that have nothing to do with the quiet freedom of the ballot.
To describe such an environment as “free and fair” is to erase these fingerprints.
Europe’s Credibility Test In The Western Balkans
European officials often insist that enlargement is a merit-based process, guided by the rule of law, independent institutions and clean elections. But statements like Kos’s risk sending the opposite message: that, in practice, geopolitics and stability trump standards.
No one disputes that the EU has a strategic interest in keeping the Western Balkans close, especially in an age of war on the continent, Russian influence, and rising authoritarianism. Yet if the price of “stability” is to bless flawed elections with the vocabulary of democratic virtue, the cost will ultimately be paid in European credibility.
Albanian citizens do read the full OSCE/ODIHR report. They see the imbalance of media coverage, the public employees pressured, the misuse of government projects as campaign tools. They also see Brussels officials glossing over those findings in public.
The message they hear is dangerous: rules are strict on paper, flexible in practice.
Between Technical Reports And Political Messages
It is true that an EU Commissioner cannot resolve Albania’s structural problems with a single press conference. It is also true that diplomatic language is, by nature, cautious. But there is a difference between caution and denial.
Kos could have said:
- that the elections were competitive but marked by serious concerns;
- that OSCE/ODIHR’s recommendations must be implemented as a condition for credible future contests;
- that Albania’s institutions have work to do before the phrase “free and fair” can be used without hesitation.
Instead, the public line minimised the problems to a footnote: “It’s always good to have recommendations for improvements.”
For many Albanians, who live inside the reality described by OSCE – not just the executive summary – this does not sound like European honesty. It sounds like European spin.
What “Sticking To European Standards” Should Mean
If the EU truly wants to support democracy in Albania, the first step is not to protect any particular government, but to protect the integrity of the process – even when that is uncomfortable for those in power.
That means:
- Recognising publicly what independent observers have documented: abuse of public resources, media bias, pressure on voters and institutional capture.
- Demanding concrete legal and institutional reforms: stronger media regulation that protects pluralism, bans on “state project” campaigning, real sanctions for abuse of office during elections, and clear rules for digital campaigning and platform access.
- Making it clear that perfect scores in places like prisons will never be treated as normal democratic outcomes, but as red flags to investigate.
Free and fair elections are not a decorative phrase to be deployed for diplomatic convenience. They are the core promise that binds Europe together.
When a country holds elections where the form is respected but the substance is bent – where the ballot exists, but the voter is pressured; where the media broadcasts, but only one narrative; where institutions oversee, but tilt – then the honest verdict cannot be “free and fair.”
It must be what the OSCE/ODIHR already suggests: a system in need of deep repair, not public absolution.
For Albania’s citizens, who still believe in the European project, the least Brussels can do is stick to its own standards – and say out loud what its own observers have already written down.