Dr. Mujë Buçpapaj: The Reduction of Literary Genres by the National Center for the Book and Reading, A Regressive Policy and an Institutional Abandonment of the National Literary Future

Dr. Mujë Buçpapaj: The Reduction of Literary Genres by the National Center for the Book and Reading – A Regressive Policy and an Institutional Abandonment of the National Literary Future

THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR THE BOOK AND READING: AN INSTITUTION UNDERMINING THE ECOSYSTEM OF ALBANIAN LITERATURE

– “The clientelist configuration of literary juries, a recurring phenomenon in which the same individuals appear one year as jury members and the following year as prize winners, constitutes an open conflict of interest.”

By Dr. Mujë Buçpapaj

– “Whereas in 2024 the fundamental categories were eliminated: ‘Best Poetry Collection,’ ‘Best Short Story Collection,’ ‘Best Children’s Book’! This elimination is neither a technical nor a neutral act; it represents an act of cultural policy with structural consequences. Poetry and the short story are the primary laboratories of aesthetic experimentation and the formation of new voices. Children’s literature is a long-term cultural investment. The removal of these genres from the state reward system implies the institutional abandonment of the literary future.”

1. The Institutional Framework and the Normative Function of State Literary Prizes

In every functional cultural system, state policies for books and literature are not merely administrative mechanisms, but normative instruments that guide the aesthetic, ethical, and professional development of national creative production. National literary prizes, as state prizes, have a dual function: first, to identify and reward the highest literary achievements, and second, to stimulate strategic genres essential to the long-term development of literary culture, such as poetry, the short story, drama, children’s literature, and high-quality literary translation.

In this sense, the National Center for the Book and Reading (QKLL), as the institution that formulates book policies, appoints juries, and structures the architecture of annual prizes, bears a fundamental public responsibility for the aesthetic vitality and competitive capacity of Albanian literature.

2. The Reduction of Genres as a Sign of Regressive Policy

A comparison between the National Literary Prizes of 2023 and those of 2024 reveals a disturbing phenomenon: the arbitrary reduction of literary genres that have traditionally been supported by the Ministry of Culture. In 2023, the prize spectrum included the novel, poetry, the short story, children’s literature, scholarly studies, and literary translation. In 2024, however, the fundamental categories were eliminated: “Best Poetry Collection,” “Best Short Story Collection,” “Best Children’s Book.”

This elimination is not a technical or neutral act; it constitutes an act of cultural policy with structural consequences. Poetry and the short story are the primary laboratories of aesthetic experimentation and the formation of new literary voices. Children’s literature represents a long-term cultural investment. The removal of these genres from the state reward system signifies the institutional abandonment of the literary future.

3. Literary Juries and the Closed Circuit of Clientelism

One of the most serious problems of the QKLL is the clientelist configuration of its literary juries. The recurring phenomenon in which the same individuals appear one year as jury members and the following year as prize winners constitutes an open conflict of interest that contradicts every ethical standard of cultural institutions within the European sphere.

This closed circuit extinguishes genuine competition, excludes independent authors and emerging voices, and creates an artificial canon based not on aesthetic value, but on institutional and publishing affiliations.

Instead of an open and meritocratic literary field, we are confronted with an oligarchic microsystem in which a small group of authors, critics, and semi-state publishing houses continuously recycle one another. The result is that a limited group of creators with questionable literary, and often merely mediatic, value benefit, while the future of Albanian literature and its national and international competitiveness suffer.

4. Mediocrity as an Institutional Norm

The current policies of the QKLL do not stimulate excellence; rather, they normalize mediocrity. Works lacking high aesthetic value, formal ambition, and long-term impact are promoted as “national achievements,” producing a literature devoid of aesthetic density, thematic universality, and potential for translation and international competition.

Thus, the institution that, according to its official mission, should “support the promotion of Albanian literature in the European and global market,” in reality produces cultural isolation and a provincial self-satisfaction of self-proclaimed “elites.”

5. The Discrepancy Between Mission and Practice

The official mission policy of the QKLL articulates lofty objectives: encouraging creativity, strengthening the educational role of libraries, spreading reading culture, and promoting Albanian literature internationally. Concrete practice, however, demonstrates the diametrical opposite: the encouragement of clans, the closure of competition, the depletion of aesthetic diversity, and the instrumentalization of state prizes in favor of narrow publishing interests.

This gap between discourse and reality renders the QKLL a formal institution devoid of genuine cultural legitimacy. The discrepancy underscores the sharp contrast and contradiction between words and deeds, between public declarations and actual outcomes.

6. A Failed Institution in Need of Radical Review

In its current state, the National Center for the Book and Reading does not function as a catalyst for literary development, but as its inhibitor. It undermines the foundations of the Albanian literary ecosystem by replacing competition with clientelism, value with conformism, and long-term vision with short-term interests.

This phenomenon must be publicly and academically denounced, because we are not dealing with sporadic errors, but with a consolidated model of institutional failure which, if not radically revised, risks leaving Albanian literature without aesthetic oxygen and without a real future.

HOW CAN THE DEGRADED STATE OF BOOK POLICIES IN ALBANIA BE IMPROVED?

From Institutional Capture to the Reconstruction of the Autonomy of the Literary Field

1. Diagnosis: Why Cosmetic Reform Is Insufficient

In its current condition, the National Center for the Book and Reading (QKLL) does not suffer from partial defects, but from a structural crisis of legitimacy. In terms of institutional sociology, we are dealing with an organization that:

• has lost the trust of the main actors in the literary field,

• operates through stabilized clientelist networks,

• produces policies that increase the heteronomy of the field (that is, decision-making is no longer based on artistic value, merit, or professional autonomy, but is influenced by politics, clientelism, personal interests, ideology, or administrative power).

At this stage, incremental reform (staff changes, partial regulatory amendments) is highly likely to reproduce the same institutional habitus. Therefore, the question is not merely whether the QKLL should be reformed, but what kind of intervention is theoretically and practically sufficient.

2. Three Reform Scenarios: A Critical Analysis

Scenario I: Dissolution of the QKLL and Reconstruction from Scratch

(Institutional Reset)

This is the most radical, but also the most theoretically coherent scenario.

Arguments in favor:

• Interrupts the continuity of the clientelist habitus.

• Allows the reconceptualization of the mission, structure, and mechanisms of symbolic capital distribution.

• Restores the trust of the literary community by creating a moment of symbolic refoundation.

• Reconstruction is accompanied by guarantees of autonomy.

• Prevents the replacement of one elite with another if criteria remain unclear.

Why is reconstruction justified?
Because the institution:

• has completely lost legitimacy,

• is no longer perceived as a neutral arbiter,

• and functions as an apparatus for the reproduction of inequalities.

Based on recent years’ analysis, the QKLL meets all these conditions.

Scenario II: Deep Restructuring with External Audit

(Externally Imposed Reform)

This model has been applied in several Central and Eastern European countries after the capture of cultural institutions.

Key elements:

• Independent international audit (experts in cultural policy).

• Complete rewriting of prize regulations.

• Clear distribution of competencies between the ministry, the institution, and the juries.

Advantage:

• Institutional continuity is preserved while informal power mechanisms are dismantled.

Limitation:

• If staff and leadership remain unchanged, the habitus tends to reproduce itself.

Scenario III: Decentralization of Book Policies

(Distribution of Symbolic Capital)

In this model, the QKLL loses its monopoly over prizes and book policies.

Main measures:

• National prizes are awarded by independent thematic juries.

• Dedicated funds are created for specific genres (poetry, short stories, children’s literature).

• Libraries and universities are involved as evaluative actors.

This model increases aesthetic pluralism and reduces the risk of institutional capture.

3. Comparative Models from Europe and the Region

a) France – Guaranteed Autonomy
Institutions such as the Centre National du Livre operate with:

• juries that change annually,

• strict conflict-of-interest rules,

• a clear separation between funding and aesthetic evaluation.

b) Slovenia – Professionalization and Transparency
The Slovenian Book Agency features:

• detailed, publicly available criteria,

• annual public reporting on every decision,

• the inclusion of academia and university criticism.

c) Croatia – Rotation and Diversity
Juries are:

• temporary,

• regionally and gender representative,

• barred from immediate reappointment.

4. Fundamental Principles for Rebuilding a Functional Institution

Regardless of the chosen model, several principles are non-negotiable:

1. Autonomy of the literary field from politics and clientelism.

2. Radical transparency of procedures and decisions.

3. Mandatory rotation of juries and leadership.

4. Clear separation between evaluators and beneficiaries.

5. Restoration of all strategic genres within state prizes.

5. Conclusion: Dissolution or Reform?

From a strictly academic and sociological perspective, the dissolution of the QKLL and its reconstruction on new principles of autonomy and professionalism is the most coherent solution for breaking the cycle of clientelism.

However, this is meaningful only if accompanied by:

• a strong legal framework,

• genuine involvement of the literary community,

• and proven European models.

Otherwise, we risk what Pierre Bourdieu described as the “illusion of reform”: a change of form without a change of structure.