Decentralization in Kosovo as a political tool on achieving the political outcomes There is no scientific consensus on whether process of decentralization can make life easy between confronted ethnic parties. But based on the very best practices that developed countries have pursuit, a decentralization which intends to improve the governing practices, thus enabling to increase the opportunities for better life and security, is a proper mechanism to take advantage of. Nevertheless, it also means that the process might not be preferred to apply on each cases of conflict resolution. In Kosovo, the process and scope of decentralization, as derived from Ahtisaari Plan, intended to bring Serbian minority into parameters of Kosovo legislation. There are three forms of decentralization that are implemented in Kosovo case: “Fiscal decentralization, entailing the transfer of financial resources in the form of grants and tax-raising powers to sub-national units of government; Administrative decentralization,(sometimes referred to as deconcentralisation), where the functions performed by central government are transferred to geographically distinct administrative units; Political decentralization where powers and responsibilities are devolved to elected local governments. This form of decentralization is synonymous with democratic decentralization or devolution.”¹ Decentralization in Kosovo, as a process, was implemented by pursuing fast track reforms – ignoring the very essential negative elements that could not be suitable for the Kosovo context. Nevertheless, it was broadly and a rmatively accepted by then- provisional institutions and implemented in major Albanian populated municipalities and successfully implemented at southern part of Kosovo municipalities with Serbian majority. However, this process stagnated and could not be implemented in the northern part of the country where since the conflict ceased is has been a subject of Serbia's interference, ethnic tensions and law-free zone. Decentralization in Kosovo was used by Kosovo institutions and Serbian community for the purpose of attaining“tit for tat” concessions. In situations like Kosovo, characterized with low level of economic development, law credibility of public institutions, unstable social cohesion and political contestation, decentralization- especially at Serbian municipalities, could not serve as remedy for reconciliation of political demands. 1 Zow Scott, Decentralisation, Local Development and Social Cohesion: An Analytical Review, 2009. GSDRC Research Paper, page 4.) http://www.gsdrc.org/docs/open/po60.pdf