FLASH
Shkruar nga Edmond Arizaj
The DP did not have a political marketing strategy to face the majority. Completely unknown candidates publicly bullied its political leaders in the districts, and the DP could not react. The DP did not take advantage of the SP's decision not to appear in debates. The DP did not have a capillary reach on social networks...
Many people knew what the SP would do before and during the elections. When Rama signed Memorandum 2 in Kuç, things became completely clear, total patronage had given him the final figures: safe, wavering votes, against. It was known that while the state was openly using its power and public money as pension bonuses, fine forgiveness, promises of legalizations, etc., despite the prohibition by law, it could more secretly use everything else, within-within-the-borders-or beyond the law. And in the face of this legionary organization, what did the DP not do?
1. In the face of the pre-electoral system of patronage, it did not create its own patronage system, not as an offer because it has nothing to offer, but as a denunciation in the palace, neighborhood, city, social networks. Only this way could fascist the fantastic work, but on the verge of breaking the law, by the patronageists. A patronage system for the patronageists.
2. Protecting every vote threatened or offered with a job, social assistance, state service. And a system of intimidation for the work of directors in every district could be the only real solution. Only if the DP is blinded to not understand that the directors in this electoral system are "tribunus militium".
3. The DP was completely spontaneous, even the "evidence" it is showing now, and that it is "collecting to present to the world", are just expressions, just like the past elections. It has learned nothing from failures. It did not create a system of observation-monitoring-documentation-denunciation, in all of Albania, possibly also the diaspora.
4. The DP did not have a database of people happy with the PS, of those who were bored, of its opponents, and perhaps even of its confident and wavering voters.
5. The DP had no idea how it could benefit from the electoral code, even though it was a co-signatory.
6. The DP was not ready to positively influence the diaspora vote. It was not even ready to make it secure and untouchable, even from suspicion.
7. The DP did not have a "fund" of serious promises. Promising pension increases, when the opponent offers bonuses, and the pensioner is closer to the egg today than the chicken tomorrow, is not trying to fight "evil", but to make it cool.
8. The DP did not show a strategy on how it would free the state from the power of the SP, that is, how it would undo the party's capture of the entire system. The theory of "let him go, that we are better off", has long since lost its hold on people who do not want to take risks in political bets without certainty.
9. The DP did not show a government that it intended to lead the country after the elections, or at least some names. People were invited to vote for the name of the prime minister, who was the same one they had been voting for for 34 years and who had been prime minister twice.
10. The DP did not make new alliances, new openings, recruit names, figures, speakers, etc. There was no yeast in its campaign, no breath. The DP failed to create the feeling that the people are eagerly awaiting change.
11. The DP did not defend the vote. If you claim that it was stolen, that means you did not defend it. If you claim that you are not the police, the judiciary, or the prosecution, but you say that the entire state is captured, you should have built special pre-election structures. If you admit that you are not in a democracy before the elections, you cannot claim “democracy” after the elections. If you agreed to fight with the entire captured system, you must prepare yourself, because you know very well how it works. Or find other ways. Of course, the thief who steals the cow is primarily to blame, but if we continue with the “humor of Cane”, even sleeping, not having a dog, and leaving the door open complete the picture. At a minimum, theft, manipulation, must be proven beyond the paragraph of “internationals” there were some partisans.
12. The DP did not have a political marketing strategy to confront the majority. Completely unknown candidates publicly bullied its political leaders in the districts, and the DP could not react. The DP did not take advantage of the SP's decision not to appear in debates. The DP did not have a capillary reach on social networks, neither with influencers nor with well-known names. The DP advertised an American election strategist, whose work was limited to a hat. The DP did not have any innovation in the public communication of the elections.
13. The DP failed to create even one joke during the campaign that would stick. Or a promise. Or simply an expression. The DP did not have a symbol during the elections. It did not even have an impressive narrative in the majority.
14. The DP was not convinced that it would come to power with the president it has. It is not even convinced that this will happen in 2029, or in 2033 with the same team. The DP does not know what and how its future will be. It does not have a plan, a strategy, a manual of action.
In the end: the DP had not made any serious preparations to face the elections and the SP with all its state and power potential. The DP was aware that it had a machine that takes every possible vote by any means, and defends with threatening fanaticism every vote paid for with public money (salaries, pensions, social assistance, legalization, permits, tenders), however, it was content simply and only with the work of a few people, in the perception of social networks, in the thought that everyone is fed up with power. Leaving aside the biggest suspicion that they are trying to inject and that has some basis; the DP (leader) did not want to win the elections.
Lini një Përgjigje