RESPONSIBILITY AND THE REGION

By: Ilir Deda 

Dear Saša,

Thank you for your letter, which raises a question that goes beyond daily politics and touches upon the very core of political action in our societies.

The thesis of a “flight from responsibility” as one of the key patterns of weakness in political systems appears particularly relevant—not only for Serbia, but also for Kosovo and the wider Western Balkans region. Not as an exception, but as a rule. It points to something deeper than individual political failures: a deeply rooted pattern of political culture that shapes the way we understand power, opposition, and the very possibility of change.

In different contexts, this pattern takes on different forms, but its essence remains the same. It often manifests through the externalization of responsibility—whether by relying on international actors as ultimate arbiters, or by expecting that external pressures will resolve internal political problems. At the same time, there is also an internal fragmentation of responsibility—through the fragmentation of the political scene, a lack of strategic cohesion, and the avoidance of clear political positioning.

The flight from responsibility rarely appears openly. It most often takes “reasonable” forms. As a rejection of political leadership—because “we don’t need leaders.” As shifting responsibility onto experts—because “politics is compromised.” As reliance on external actors—because “someone from the outside will fix things.” As constant postponement—until “ideal conditions” emerge. Or as the belief that the energy of society will, on its own, produce political results. All of these are understandable reactions. But none of them changes the core reality: without assuming political responsibility, there can be no political change.

In this sense, it is important to emphasize that key political resources—public support, credibility, social energy, and international backing—rarely emerge as preconditions for action. They are created. On the contrary, they are most often the result of political initiative that has clearly defined goals and a willingness to take responsibility for their realization.

However, the question of responsibility cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader social context. In societies with deeply eroded trust in institutions and political actors, the “flight from responsibility” is often not merely an expression of opportunism, but also a consequence of skepticism toward the very idea that politics can produce real and sustainable change.

Therefore, the challenge lies not only in calling for the assumption of responsibility, but also in shaping it in a way that is socially credible. This implies a combination of a clear political vision, consistency in action, and a willingness to take political risks.

In this context, the idea of the emergence of a political actor who clearly articulates goals and takes responsibility for their realization remains crucial. However, for such a breakthrough to have transformative potential, it must be grounded in genuine credibility and recognized as an authentic expression of political offer, rather than yet another transient attempt at mobilization.

Finally, a broader lesson remains—one that transcends the boundaries of individual political systems: no institutional framework can function without people willing to take responsibility for its operation. Rules are necessary, but they are not sufficient—their strength depends on those who are willing to implement and defend them. Not because the conditions have changed, but because someone has decided not to wait. If people recognize something real in that, the support and energy that today appear dispersed begin to converge.

In that sense, the question of responsibility remains the central question of political transformation in the region—not as an abstract value, but as a concrete political choice. Both political and personal.

Best Regards,
Ilir

Read more:

Flight from responsibility