The administrative division should come as a need for change from the municipalities and not as a dictate from politics

ALTAX in its activity related to the preparation of good practices is working with partners and local communities to achieve that the change required through the reformation of the administrative division comes as a need from within for change and not as a dictate from politics.
Municipalities differ from each other for historical, economic, geographical, or cultural reasons. Some of them have a larger rural population and some others have more industrial development. Some have more historical sites, and some have more advanced terrain and flora/fauna. Another difference between them is seen in the composition of the staff available to the local government, where some municipalities have few specialized staff, and some others have an overload in the number of employees.

Despite the obvious differences between them, Municipalities share some commonalities, such as: legal framework, administrative system, political culture, or common historical experiences. This has made it easier to share some solutions that have undergone testing and successful implementation as cases of good experiences.

This experience has also on occasion allowed local government leadership to use new approaches without excessive risk, to use good practices whose effectiveness has already been proven elsewhere.

It is understandable that municipalities try to deal with daily challenges in diverse ways. For example, some municipalities tend to avoid change, so follow the same procedures for years, repeatedly achieving beneficial effects or making the same mistake, fearing that an innovative approach may bring new problems or create risks.

In contrast, other municipalities constantly seek improvements and incentives in the belief that things can get better in the future. They usually look for better solutions and are willing to manage risk.

When everything is going well and the community is satisfied with the quality of service provided, there may be no incentive to change. In such situations, Municipalities reluctant to change may limit themselves to day-to-day administration and supervision, without thinking that a different and innovative approach may yield better results.

Indeed, poor services stem from contentment with the status quo, but influentially also from the lack of good leadership, which is unable to accept the challenge of change or realize that its management is not adapted to the needs and demands of the time.

Based on the experiences of the last years of running municipalities, where the use of personal responsibility to undertake initiatives is limited, it is inevitable that change is considered difficult. But the growing expectations of the central government, policy makers and local communities, together with the effects of civil society and the economic elite are such that both the leadership and staff of municipalities must embrace change or become part of positive developments in municipalities that have a better management model.

Of course, some professional roles can be assigned to individuals/experts who not only do not lack the necessary skills but may also know change must come from inclusiveness and sharing of experiences among community members.

Local government leadership may have ignored the shortcomings of the services their municipality provides and may have created a closed leadership model. But, based on the specifics of this model, it takes a special situation, such as facing an unusual decision, timely follow-up of difficult and tough issues, to make someone aware of where greater expertise is needed or how it can be done. things. differently.

The question that is asked in this regard is how the leadership and staff of a Municipality can build a cooperation model based on the expertise of individuals and civil society (expertise-based), to search for new, better solutions, without being overexposed to risks?

The best way is for them to be able to learn from the experience of others at the most optimal cost.

Municipalities can learn from the experience of others by analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of alternative approaches. Such an approach would be valid at any moment, to face the proposals from the politicians of Tirana who seek to change the current division against public interests and in favor of party interests.

By using the positive experience of others, leadership can learn:

to develop the municipality in a planned and effective manner.
improve the quality of services provided to local people and organizations
introduction of modern methods in administration management.
minimize the risks of performing new approaches.
stimulating greater community development through inclusiveness.

But all this serves not only as a process of communication and education, but mostly for the awareness of an open government, which is oriented not only by political criteria and party colors, but mostly by the interests of strengthening democracy through inclusiveness.

The need to look deep into the failure of local government is first the internal analysis of the leadership of the municipality itself. Secondly, the model of good local administration depends a lot on the political will of political Tirana.

But, if from all that we evidenced through the analysis of the main aspects of local government, many activities can change if the model of local administration approaches the analysis for the benefit of the healthy local community, but also considering within them the correction of political directives.

In this context, a new division without economic analysis on cost-benefit, as well as an approach in favor of services for citizens, is of little value.

It results from the social audit in different municipalities, it results that their fiscal performance reaches levels of no more than 60 – 70 percent of the programs.

But on the other hand, the unsatisfactory performance by the ministries for their programs directly affects the performance of the municipalities.

Based on the current situation of the political debate, everything that has happened should serve as a basis for economic analysis and the feasibility of local administration, in order not to let politics prevail in the future only based on interests that have destroyed the model of local self-government.