After weeks of protests and a visible shift in Prime Minister Edi Rama’s political language, the government has decided to put the Zvërnec project through a 90-day filter. The strategic document called “BESA” provides for hearings and the opening of documentation, but leaves the essential question open: is this a real review of the project, or simply management of the public crisis?
Zvërnec, the first test of the government’s new formula
According to the government’s strategic document, the Zvërnec project will be the first test of what the majority calls “BESA,” a new decision-making framework for Edi Rama’s fourth mandate.
In the official version, this is presented as a method aimed at measuring government policies, reforms and decisions through a more open approach toward the public. But the first test is not an ordinary administrative issue: it concerns the project that sparked protests and put the government in the face of a strong public reaction.
The 90-day deadline and what is promised within it
The plan foresees that within 90 days, field hearings will be held with residents, researchers, scientists and the groups that opposed the project. At the end of this period, according to the government, the hearings must be concluded, publishable documentation opened, a preliminary assessment carried out and a reasoned decision taken on how to proceed further.
The document also says that issues requiring more time will be registered with public deadlines, responsible institutions and continuous reporting on an interface called “Flamingo Mirror.”
No pre-judgment on paper, but every option remains on the table
According to the document, the process does not begin with a predetermined position, either to move the project forward or to stop it. On paper, the government says every alternative remains open.
The options mentioned are continuing with guarantees, correction, conditioning, reconceptualization or stopping the project, depending on the law, contracts and evidence. The document also stresses that this method does not suspend legal powers, administrative procedures, contractual obligations or judicial review.
This means that although a new consultation process is being announced, the legal and contractual architecture built earlier remains in force. This is precisely where the most sensitive point of the public debate lies: how much real room is there for change when the existing frameworks are left untouched?
“BESA,” from the rhetoric of care to the test of credibility
In its own description, the government presents “BESA” as a shift from the “logic of construction” to the “culture of care,” with the aim of placing the citizen at the center of decision-making. The document speaks of an administration that respects deadlines, services delivered with dignity and institutions that admit mistakes.
But beyond the political language and the new concept, the test will be concrete: whether the Zvërnec case produces real transparency, institutional responsibility and a decision supported by documents and arguments, or whether it remains only a new packaging of the same top-down decision-making.
Analysis of the approach before the protests
At the end of the process, an analysis is also envisaged of the approach followed before June, when the protests began. According to the document, this analysis aims to draw lessons without obstructing administrative, contractual or legal responsibility where it is proven.
Every element of this process, according to the official version, will be published on “Flamingo Mirror,” a platform the government intends to use later for other files of high public interest as well.
For the moment, the government has announced the deadline and the procedure, but not the outcome. After the protests, the Zvërnec issue has entered a new political and administrative phase, where the weight of transparency will be measured not by promises, but by the documents that are opened, the hearings that are held and the decision that will be taken at the end of the 90 days.
In a climate of mistrust toward institutions, any lack of clarity about this process risks turning the declared “filter” into another official formula without real accountability.