Two meetings called to consult citizens on the territorial reform in the Municipality of Belsh failed one after the other, as there was no attendance in the hall. In a process that is officially presented as public consultation, the absence of residents raises serious questions about real interest, trust in the process, and the way the discussion is being conducted on a possible merger with Elbasan.
The first meeting was postponed after citizens failed to attend
The first hearing, called by the Belsh Municipal Council for August 31 in the town, failed because of the lack of citizen participation. After that, the council decided to set another date, hoping for greater interest from residents.
The calendar of public hearings had been published as early as August 10, suggesting that the formal notice period had been in place. However, this did not translate into actual attendance at the consultation.
The hearing in Kajan also fails
The meeting scheduled for September 1 with residents of the Kajan Administrative Unit also did not take place as planned, again because of a lack of participation. For this hearing, the Municipal Council is expected to assess whether it will set another date.
Two failed attempts in a row place at the center of attention not only the lack of interest, but also the effectiveness of the way a reform that directly affects local organization is being communicated.
The merger with Elbasan remains without real debate in Belsh
According to the draft for the administrative-territorial reform, Belsh and Cërrik are expected to merge with Elbasan. While citizen protests have appeared in other areas of Elbasan County, the reaction in Belsh has been minimal.
The only reported organization there had very low participation, leaving the debate almost empty, both among supporters and opponents of the new map.
A formal process or a missing consultation?
The draft law proposed by the Socialist Party has been sent to municipalities across the country, with the request that citizens’ opinions be gathered and that municipal councils and mayors express their positions officially. On paper, the scheme appears consultative; on the ground, at least in Belsh, the process so far has resulted in no participation.
In municipalities not affected by the reform, the hearings have largely been treated as a formality. But in cases where municipalities risk being dissolved, the absence of citizens from consultations makes it even less clear whether this is indifference, distrust, or a process that is failing to produce real public debate.
In Belsh, what stands out most is not an open clash over the reform, but the void in participation. And when consultations on such a sensitive change fail twice in a row, the question is not only what citizens think, but also whether they feel part of the decision-making at all.