E fundit!

09:51 DENOUNCEMENT

Two documents/ Ajola Xoxa made Erion Veliaj a partner with Mirel Mërtiri and Klodian Zoto

The in-depth investigations that SPAK conducted into Ajola...

Rotation in politics

2023-08-24 10:41:00, Opinione Ardi Stefa

Ardi Stefa

If we were to bring examples, or compare politics with sports, especially with those that are not individual, but are played in a team, we would notice that there are three schools, which the coaches follow.

The first school supports the idea that a winning team doesn't change.

The second school is in favor of combining part of the winning team with young players.

The third school is radical. She is in favor of radical renewal, because she thinks that the winning team has used up all its reserves, that is, it has used up all its fuel.

Of course, all three schools have their pros and cons. Everything depends on the assessment that the coach will make for his players.

Not to change the winning team is almost an axiom. Let the players make their own game, strictly following your instructions. It just sometimes makes a necessary change, always internal to the players on your roster.

There is a risk that in the future some basic players will "burn out" and will no longer be effective.

For this reason, the second school of thought of coaches thinks, that of partial renewal, which foresees the combination of old players with young ones. Here the risk is that the new players do not "connect" properly with the old ones on the field of play, while the climate in the dressing rooms is not good, since the old ones see the team as their own.

The coach-prime minister or even party leader makes his plan: ministers and party functionaries are invited to implement it - while followers, voters or even the gray part of the electorate wait to see and judge with their vote.

In the third school, the coach takes over everything. If his renewal fails, then he leaves, despite the fact that in the medium term it may turn out to be positive.

If you win, then you get all the credit.

But in the case of a radical change, the positive results are seen to extend in time and space.

What is required is a significant "credit" of time and an increasingly better performance of the new team.

You will tell me what the sport as a team has to do with politics.

Ka shumë lidhje, do t’ju përgjigjesha. Është trajneri- kryeministër- kryetar partie, janë lojtarët- ministra- funksionarë partie dhe në fund janë edhe tifozët- votuesit fanatikë ose jo, elektorati partiak ose ai gri, të cilin të gjithë synojnë ta kenë me vete.

Trajneri- kryeministrët- kryetar partie paraqet planin dhe lojtarët - ministra- funksionarë partie ftohen ta zbatojnë, sipas aftësive të tyre.

Në fund tifozët- votuesit presin të shohin dhe të gjykojnë...

Në fillim të shkrimit thashë se të treja këto shkolla trajnimi kanë të mirat dhe të këqijat e tyre.

E keqja e parë është se këto shkolla bazohen vetëm mbi fitoren, ndërkohë që duhet marrë parasysh dhe me shumë seriozitet edhe parametri i humbjes.

The second bad thing is not what school the coaches will follow to win, but the insistence on only one school, the chronic losing coach must keep the players of the chronic losing team at all costs, try to ignore them. fans, that with this team they will become champions and lead them from defeat to defeat, losing not only the championships, but also the fans.

And this is a tragedy, not only in sports, but also in politics!

And not only in politics!

It causes democracy to be lost, because it leaves the field open to only one team, which will continue to humiliate you, as long as it does not change its school but also its philosophy.

In other words, the fans change the coach and the entire losing team!