Mandate, Momentum, and a Democratic Dilemma
The December 2025 snap parliamentary elections in Kosovo marked a turning point after nearly a year of institutional paralysis. Vetëvendosje (VV), led by Albin Kurti, emerged as the clear winner with close to half of the total vote, far outpacing its rivals and placing itself in a strong position to form a new government. While domestic dissatisfaction with political deadlock, economic stagnation, and institutional dysfunction played a central role in this outcome, another factor proved decisive in consolidating Vetëvendosje’s dominance: the Kosovo diaspora.
Diaspora voters, particularly those based in Germany, Switzerland, and the Nordic countries, overwhelmingly backed Kurti’s party. Their votes did not merely reinforce an existing trend; they widened the gap between Vetëvendosje and its competitors, weakened the opposition’s claim to legitimacy, and helped transform a plurality into a commanding mandate. At the same time, the prominent role of diaspora voting has reignited a long-standing and uncomfortable debate in Kosovo’s political life: how fair is it for citizens who do not live with the consequences of governance to play a decisive role in determining the country’s future?
A snap election shaped by frustration
The snap elections were called after the failure to form a stable government following the February 2025 vote. Prolonged negotiations, procedural blockages, and mutual vetoes among parties left Kosovo without a functional parliament and with stalled budgets, delayed reforms, and frozen international commitments. For many voters, the December election became less about ideology and more about restoring basic governability.
Vetëvendosje successfully framed itself as the only force capable of ending the deadlock. Kurti’s campaign emphasized institutional discipline, sovereignty, and resistance to what he portrayed as entrenched political elites. This message resonated strongly among voters disillusioned with traditional parties such as the Democratic Party of Kosovo (PDK) and the Democratic League of Kosovo (LDK), both of which saw their vote shares decline significantly.
Yet the magnitude of Vetëvendosje’s victory cannot be fully explained by domestic dynamics alone. Diaspora voting proved to be a crucial multiplier.
Turning momentum into dominance
Kosovo’s diaspora has long been politically engaged, but in the 2025 election its impact was unusually pronounced. Postal ballots and in-person votes cast by citizens living abroad heavily favored Vetëvendosje, with estimates suggesting that well over two-thirds of diaspora votes went to Kurti’s party. These ballots were added later in the counting process, but their effect was unmistakable: they pushed Vetëvendosje closer to, and in some projections beyond, the symbolic 50 percent threshold.
Several factors explain this alignment. Diaspora voters tend to be younger, more politically mobilized, and more emotionally invested in narratives of reform and national dignity. Many maintain strong ties to Kosovo while simultaneously comparing its governance failures with the efficiency and predictability of Western European systems in which they live. Kurti’s anti-corruption rhetoric, confrontational posture toward political elites, and emphasis on state sovereignty align well with this perspective.
The timing of the election during the holiday season, also mattered. Thousands of diaspora citizens were physically present in Kosovo and able to vote in person, further amplifying their influence. In practical terms, diaspora support did not merely help Vetëvendosje win; it helped deliver a result strong enough to plausibly end a year-long political stalemate.
Strengthening legitimacy or complicating it?
From one perspective, diaspora voting strengthens Kosovo’s democracy. Citizens abroad remain citizens; many send remittances, own property, and plan eventual return. Their engagement reflects continued attachment to the state and counters political apathy. Moreover, diaspora votes often favor reformist platforms, potentially pushing domestic politics toward higher standards of governance.
However, the 2025 election has sharpened concerns that diaspora participation also introduces a democratic imbalance, the one that Kosovo has yet to confront honestly.
The fairness question, voting without bearing the consequences
A growing segment of Kosovo’s population questions whether it is fair for the diaspora to decisively shape electoral outcomes when they do not live with the daily consequences of state failure. Citizens residing in Germany, Switzerland, or Sweden benefit from functioning institutions: reliable healthcare systems, high-quality education for their children, predictable rule of law, and social security networks. When they cast ballots in Kosovo, they do so from the safety of systems that work.
By contrast, residents of Kosovo must endure the results of political choices in real time. They face underfunded hospitals, fragile schools, unemployment, and governance failures. When a government falters, it is not the diaspora that waits months for medical treatment, navigates politicized public administration, or watches opportunities slip away, it is those who live in Kosovo.
This asymmetry raises a fundamental democratic dilemma: should those who are insulated from the consequences of political decisions have equal influence over them? The issue is not about denying citizenship or patriotism, but about accountability. Voting is not merely an expression of identity; it is a mechanism for allocating power and responsibility. When responsibility is absent, legitimacy becomes contested.
Critics argue that diaspora voters may be more inclined toward protest voting or maximalist political positions precisely because they do not bear the costs of instability, international isolation, or policy missteps. In this view, diaspora influence risks distorting domestic political incentives rather than correcting them.
A mandate with conditions
None of this negates the fact that Vetëvendosje won the 2025 election decisively and legitimately under existing legal frameworks. The diaspora vote was lawful, and its support reflects real political preferences among Kosovo citizens abroad. But legitimacy is not static; it is sustained through outcomes.
If Kurti’s government succeeds in restoring institutional functionality, passing budgets, improving services, and stabilizing Kosovo’s international position, the diaspora-backed mandate will appear vindicated. If it fails, resentment toward diaspora influence is likely to deepen, further polarizing an already fragmented society.
Diaspora power and the limits of democratic fairness
The decisive role of the diaspora in Kosovo’s 2025 elections underscores a structural imbalance that Kosovo can no longer treat as politically untouchable. In comparative terms, Kosovo stands as an outlier: it grants its diaspora unlimited and unconditional electoral influence, with no time limits abroad, no separate representation, and no institutional safeguards to prevent external voters from reshaping domestic political outcomes. This creates a fundamental democratic tension between political voice and political stake.
Citizens residing permanently in Germany, Switzerland, or Sweden, benefiting from functioning healthcare systems, high-quality education, and stable rule of law- exercise the same electoral power as those who must live daily with Kosovo’s governance failures, economic insecurity, and institutional fragility. The issue is not one of legality or patriotism, but of accountability: voting allocates power, and power without exposure to consequences risks distorting democratic choice. Many democracies have addressed this dilemma through time-based voting limits, separate diaspora constituencies, capped external representation, or restricted voting scope-models that preserve inclusion while prioritizing those who bear the costs of political decisions. If Kosovo continues to ignore this imbalance, diaspora voting risks evolving from a democratic asset into a source of domestic alienation and legitimacy erosion. Reforming the external voting framework is therefore not an act of exclusion, but a necessary step toward aligning democratic authority with lived responsibility and safeguarding the credibility of Kosovo’s political future.
