CIVICUS discusses Albania’s recent election with Erida Skëndaj, Executive Director of the Albanian Helsinki Committee (AHC), a non-partisan civil society organisation (CSO) dedicated to promoting fair and democratic elections.

On 11 May, Albania held a parliamentary election that secured a fourth consecutive term for Prime Minister Edi Rama, whose Socialist Party won 52.1 per cent of the vote. The election saw the historic introduction of diaspora voting, representing a significant expansion of democratic participation. However, the election also took place amid a backdrop of allegations of misuse of public resources, vote-buying and undue pressure on voters, raising concerns about electoral fairness. Civil society played a crucial role in monitoring the process and educating voters, even as it faced smear campaigns and reduced funding. The results are expected to influence Albania’s European Union (EU) accession process and governance reforms.

Why was this election significant?

For the first time, Albanians living abroad were able to vote from their countries of residence. Although the Electoral Code has provided for diaspora voting since 2020, uncertainties in the law and political disagreements delayed its implementation. The Central Electoral Commission (CEC), which oversees elections, postponed action until 2022, when the Constitutional Court mandated parliament to resolve these legal issues.

Parliament amended the diaspora voting legislation in May 2024, and then in December the president set the election date for 11 May 2025, giving the CEC only five months to establish the necessary infrastructure. Using the newly developed Electronic Platform of Electoral Registration of Immigrants, Albanians abroad could register and then vote by post, with DHL contracted to deliver voting materials.

Despite this progress, overall voter turnout declined by about four points compared to previous elections. Nonetheless, diaspora voting represented a meaningful step forward for Albania’s 35-year-old democracy, ensuring every citizen, regardless of location, has the opportunity to exercise their right to vote.

Why did so many Albanians living abroad choose not to vote?

It’s still too early to say, but concerns about data privacy seem to have significantly deterred participation, particularly among undocumented migrants, since political parties have access to voter lists and the CEC’s official documents containing migrants’ data. This apprehension is understandable in light of a major data breach in 2021, when personal and voting information of residents of Tirana, the capital, was leaked and allegedly misused by the ruling party. Lack of accountability for this breach has further eroded public trust.

Although the CEC implemented a two-envelope system to separate voter identity from ballots and guarantee anonymity, trust in the electoral system in Albania’s young democracy remains fragile. There were allegations that people working in public administration asked family members in the diaspora to support the ruling party. In contrast to regular voting centres, where guarantees such as the ban on taking photos of a ballot are easier to enforce, cases of undue influence are more likely to go unchecked when it comes to diaspora voting.

What were the main concerns raised during the election?

Several serious issues came to light. Local governments misused public resources to benefit the ruling party, including by providing grants. During the four-month period when the government is not allowed to spend resources in ways that could influence the campaign, the central government made decisions that had a strong influence, including increasing pensions and announcing a tax amnesty two days before the election. So far, such forms of misuse of state resources have gone unpunished due to the CEC’s narrow interpretation of electoral law.

The campaign also saw misuse of the EU integration narrative, a shared national goal, as a partisan tool. As a result, many voters misunderstood the process, expecting immediate improvements in pay and living standards, unaware that EU accession requires that a country meets strict criteria on democracy, human rights and the rule of law, as outlined in the Copenhagen Criteria.

Election-day monitors reported allegations that led to ongoing criminal investigations by the Special Structure against Corruption and Organized Crime, Albania’s anti-corruption prosecutor. These investigations focus on claims that prisoners in the city of Elbasan were pressured to vote for the ruling party through coordination between organised crime groups and prison guards. The AHC, which observed the election, also reported that people in the cities of Durres and Elbasan expressed concerns about organised crime’s influence on the voting process.

How did civil society contribute to electoral integrity?

Seven months before the election, CSOs, many supported by international donors such as Open Society Foundations and USAID, faced smear campaigns and delegitimisation efforts through politically affiliated media outlets. Lack of financial sustainability of some of the electoral watchdog CSOs had a chilling effect.

This undermined civil society’s ability to monitor the election and educate voters and limited its outreach to vulnerable populations, leaving them exposed to undue influence, including from party activists and organised crime. But despite these challenges, civil society helped strengthen civic participation and reinforce electoral integrity.

Organisations such as the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network-Albania, Civic Resistance, the Institute for Political Studies and ourselves collaborated closely on watchdog activities, by exercising positive pressure to strengthen internal party democracy, raising youth awareness and supporting enforcement of the decriminalisation law, which bars people with criminal records running for parliament.

We monitored the misuse of public office for electoral advantage and tracked key pre-election processes, including the publication of voter lists. On election day, 160 short-term observers covered around four per cent of polling stations across 17 municipalities, while 15 long-term observers monitored resource misuse and other electoral practices in the lead-up to the vote.

AHC also offered free legal aid to victims of electoral crimes such as vote buying and abuse of public office. However, as in previous elections, few victims were willing to report violations or pursue legal action.