The draft for the new territorial map is also being accompanied by discontent within the majority. In Parliament, Socialist Party MP for Berat County Fadil Nasufi questioned the logic of merging Dimal with Berat, while saying that other areas with similar typology have not been treated the same way.
Reservations from within the majority itself over the draft
During his speech in Parliament, Nasufi said he has followed the reactions and objections coming from Dimal and Poliçan over the merger with Berat. His position showed that the draft is not moving forward without political cost even within the socialist ranks.
Nasufi presented the concern as an inconsistency in the criteria used for local reorganization, suggesting that the formula is not being applied equally to all municipalities.
The main question: why only Dimal?
According to his statement, he had expected a map that would take the organization of local government toward the boundaries of metropolitan municipalities or former districts. It was precisely here that he raised the main question: why is Dimal being merged with Berat, while other municipalities are not affected by the same logic?
The MP specifically mentioned Roskovec, Kuçova and Delvinë as examples of units that, according to his argument, could have been treated in the same way, or even more so, from the standpoint of typology.
“I agree with the residents of Dimal”
In his speech, Nasufi said he agrees with the residents of Dimal. This position makes even more visible the distance between local concerns and the official version of the draft that is being pushed for approval.
The debate over the territorial map once again brings back the old question about the real criteria behind administrative reforms: whether decision-making is based on the needs of communities or on a political formula built at the center.
He will vote for it, but with a “bitter taste”
Despite his reservations, Nasufi declared that he will vote for the draft. However, he said he will do so with a “bitter taste” and with the disappointment of many residents who, according to him, do not agree with this administrative map.
His statement highlights a contradiction that often appears in votes on sensitive issues: public criticism of the content, but support in the end for the political decision.
The socialist MP’s position adds to the questions over the coherence of the draft for the new territorial division and over the way local objections are being weighed.
When such reservations come even from the majority itself, the debate over the administrative map goes beyond technique and becomes a political test of the reform’s legitimacy.