For the first time ever in his life, Edi Rama is trying to behave like a constitutionalist.

Being in a state of shock after the President of the Republic’s firm refusal of his candidature for the Minister of the Interior, through his entourage in the media, ordered articles and editorials written by himself in behalf of the journalists, he’s trying to hit the President with the legal and Constitutional argument that the President’s Constitutional right of (non)decreeing the proposals is only ceremonial and not substantial. The Premier’s argument is more or less like this: the name of the minister is a nomenclature of the government’s chief; the President decrees it only formally because his capacity is only formal and ceremonial, and the parliament will vote him.

As a consequence, the President cannot reject a Prime Minister’s proposal.

The most positive thing in this development is that the Prime Minister finally and painfully has learnt that someone (in this case the President) may tell him NO through a legal act!

Being in power does not mean you may do whatever you want; there are rules, the parties keep in check one another! The argument of “the ceremonialism or solemnity of the President’s decree” is a constitutional debate and consequently only the Constitutional Court may have an exhaustive argument.

It is neither the Prime Minister nor his media to define what is and what is not anti-Constitutional. But Rama, as a re-born constitutionalist cannot turn to the Constitutional Court because he has locked it already. “Karma is a bitch” would be the most appropriate ironic sentence in this case.

It was Rama who denied anyone’s right in this country to turn to the Constitutional Court for his governance’s misdeeds and now he has fallen in his own trap.

But beyond the absence of the Constitutional Court as an intentional politic thought of the Prime Minister there is another element which he, either consciously or unconsciously (considering he hates the law and the law argument) forgets.

The basic constitutional principle that defines the interaction among the branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial) is the principle of checks and balances. This principle is not mentioned by Rama, because he hates it. It is the constitutional principle that prevents him from ruling as he wishes.

Considering that Rama is an ignorant in jurisprudence, let’s try to explain it in a language he understands – in the street or table language he uses when he speaks with (Durrës Mayor) Dako, (imprisoned gangster) Shullazi, (former IM) Tahiri or (former Kavaja Mayor) Elvis Rroshi – the checks and balances of government imply that the institutions control one another to avoid abuses.

Explained in a juridical way, checks and balances is a system that any democratic constitution uses to make sure and guarantee that none of the branches does not overcome its constitutional duties and limits abuses and autocratic acts.

In our case, the President’s decree is not a solemn and ceremonial act by the President, but an exercise of his role and his constitutional capacity to check another branch, the executive. In other words, the Constitution has set three filters for someone’s appointment as a minister.

The first filter is the selection of an individual by the Prime Minister, by proposing them.

The second filer is the (non) decreeing from the President.

The third filter is the vote in the parliament.

In the case of the Director of the State Intelligence Service (SHISH), the law (not the Constitution) has set two filters only: the Prime Minister as selector and the President as decreeing authority.

In the logic of checks and balances, the constitution defines the cases when the Parliament checks and balances the President, like in the case of voting his proposal for the Governor of the Bank of Albania or the Chairman of the State Supreme Audit; and by the other hand when the President checks and balances the Parliament, like in the cases of returning the bills passed by the parliament and which the President does not approve.

In the case of lawmaking, the Constitution has set four filters: 1) the government’s decision that proposes the bill; 2) the parliament vote; 3) (non)decreeing from the President; 4) the Constitutional Court in case of reference.

There’s also anther delicate moment related to the Presidential Decree. The Constitution recognizes the principle of the silent approval. It means, when the parliament passes a bill, which the President disapproves politically but finds no legal or constitutional flaw to return it, so he neither returns nor decrees it within the legal deadline,

In such a case the bill becomes law in silence and comes to force. The Constitution has made a clear distinction concerning that. It has allowed the silent approval for the laws but has not sanctioned the silent approval for the nominations.

Precisely this distinction defines the power of the President’s decree in case of nominations. Consequently, no branch is totally free to do what they want.

Just like the voting by the parliament is not a ceremonial and solemn but a substantial act, also the President’s decree is not a solemn but a substantial competence of the President. There is only one moment in this chain when the President’s act is merely solemn and ceremonial: the minister’s oath before the President when he takes the duty.

In the end the Prime Minister should be reminded that the Constitution has defined the Constitutional Court as the place to solve the disputes among branches and as a guarantor of the Constitution.

If he’s willing to solve the disputes as a statesman he must turn to it (first he must unblock it). If he prefers to solve them as a bully, let him continue with the mediatic pressures and blackmails, and not only.

Only if it could work…