Tirana, Albania – In the wake of escalating student protests that have, at times, devolved into violent clashes with police, Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama has adopted an increasingly hardline stance. His rhetoric, characterized by accusations and disparagement directed at the protesting students, has moved beyond mere pronouncements of law enforcement to raise significant concerns about the erosion of democratic principles and potential constitutional violations.
Initially, without presenting concrete evidence, Rama asserted that foreign entities, citing Russia and Iran, along with the anti-fascist movement known as ANTIFA – designated a terrorist organization by former U.S. President Donald Trump – were orchestrating the youth mobilization. He subsequently threatened punitive measures, including the revocation of scholarships and the restriction of services, impacting rights ostensibly guaranteed by the Constitution.
"We will close many of your accesses to airports, to hotels, to trains, to all means of transport, and naturally, we will cooperate, and we have already started working with the European Union countries to deny access to those countries as violent people," Rama declared, his words echoing a sentiment that has drawn sharp criticism from legal scholars and historians.
This strong-arm approach has not only ignited concerns regarding its constitutional and legal basis but has also, according to historical researchers, conjured unsettling echoes of Albania’s totalitarian past.
Historical Parallels and the Demonization of Dissent
Hasan Bello, a scholar specializing in Albanian political history, particularly during the communist era, drew a stark parallel between Rama’s current pronouncements and the tactics employed in the pre-1990 period. "Just like before the ’90s, he is presenting the protesters as enemies of the people, agents, and collaborators with foreign powers," Bello told BIRN.
According to Bello, the Prime Minister’s strategy appears to be aimed at delegitimizing the students through exclusionary language, threats, and societal polarization, reminiscent of the "class struggle" narratives that defined the communist regime. "This paves the way for an increase in social tension and repression by law enforcement agencies," Bello emphasized.
Erold Hoxha, Director of the Institute for Studies on Crimes and Consequences of Communism, also noted the authoritarian undertones in Rama’s rhetoric, describing it as a reflection of "the personalization of power" to the extent that the Prime Minister appears as "the source of legal authority for everything."
"Dictators issue orders and directives without considering the existing legal framework," Hoxha stated, implying that Rama is operating beyond democratic constraints.
For Enriketa Papa, a pedagogue, such rhetoric is deemed detrimental and counterproductive at a time of heightened social tensions. "Beyond the reminiscences of a culture of violence and authoritarian thinking as a legacy of the communist past, the rhetoric incites conflict rather than de-escalating tensions and promoting social peace," Papa told BIRN.
The Dichotomy of "Us" Versus "Them": Stigmatization and Exclusion
Totalitarian regimes have historically weaponized language to fracture societies, creating a stark division between citizens deemed acceptable and those labeled as enemies. In Albania’s 45-year totalitarian dictatorship, this process was known as the "class struggle." This exclusionary discourse serves to legitimize the marginalization and suppression of segments of the population as necessary for societal protection.
In this context, psychotherapist Neli Demi analyzes Prime Minister Rama’s rhetoric as a form of stigmatization that extends beyond condemning violent actions. It cultivates the perception of a category of citizens who must be excluded from public life.
"This language fuels the division between ‘us,’ the acceptable citizens, and ‘them,’ the individuals from whom we must be protected," Demi explained, adding that "fear can make the public more amenable to exclusion, while anger can turn the denigration of the other into something seemingly deserved."
In a democracy, Demi observes, a political leader’s responsibility is to establish boundaries against violence while maintaining a clear distinction between the perpetrator of an unlawful act, a protester, and a political opponent. However, the Prime Minister’s chosen rhetoric, he contends, risks exacerbating distrust and conflict further.
"Individual responsibility requires proof and individual assessment, whereas collective branding, as in Prime Minister Rama’s reactions, erases these distinctions," Demi told BIRN.
Ultimately, Demi stresses that "history and psychology have consistently taught and proven that force can impose beliefs, but it cannot generate trust."
Constitutional Overreach and the Erosion of Due Process
The Constitution of Albania enshrines the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, stipulating that any limitations must be enacted through law, for a public interest or the protection of others’ rights, and must be proportionate to the circumstances necessitating them. The Constitution also guarantees the right to freedom of movement, both domestically and internationally, and safeguards the right to due process when an individual’s constitutional and legal rights, freedoms, or interests are infringed upon.
Historical scholars emphasize that in any democratic society, responsibility for unlawful actions is determined through legal procedures and by competent institutions, not through public pronouncements of political lists or orders.
According to Erold Hoxha, the Prime Minister’s political will cannot unilaterally determine legal consequences for citizens. "The threat of denying entry to the EU for specific individuals exposes the deficiencies in the Prime Minister’s legal formation," Hoxha stated, adding that "his decrees are not normative acts, but signs of totalitarianism."
Furthermore, he argues that the right to movement is a natural and constitutional right. As a constitutional right, it cannot be restricted by executive decisions but only by a court order, based on legal grounds.
The same principle applies to the assessment of damages against protesters or the fining of parents in lieu of their minor children. According to Hoxha, these actions "cannot be taken by executive or political decision," but only after they undergo a legal process through the courts.
Historian Hasan Bello concurs, deeming the measures Rama seeks to implement against protesters as unconstitutional and contrary to European democratic values. "It is in his personal honor and a legal obligation to abandon the language used until now and the reminiscences that remind us of what the communist regime used against students in ’91," Bello concluded.
Chronology of Escalation and Shifting Tactics
The current tensions stem from a series of student protests that initially centered on specific demands regarding tuition fees and educational reforms. However, the situation has been amplified by the Prime Minister’s increasingly aggressive rhetoric.
- Initial Protests: Students began demonstrating peacefully, articulating grievances related to the quality of education, perceived corruption within the university system, and the affordability of higher education.
- Escalation and Clashes: As the protests gained momentum, some demonstrations witnessed confrontations with police. The nature of these clashes remains a point of contention, with the government attributing them to violent elements and protesters alleging excessive force by law enforcement.
- Prime Minister’s Initial Accusations: In response to the escalating situation, Prime Minister Rama began to publicly suggest external influences behind the protests, naming Russia, Iran, and ANTIFA without providing verifiable evidence. This marked a shift from addressing the students’ demands to questioning their motivations and allegiances.
- Threats of Sanctions: Following these accusations, Rama’s rhetoric intensified with direct threats of punitive measures. These included the potential revocation of scholarships, limitations on access to various services, and, most notably, the prospect of international travel bans in cooperation with EU countries.
- Academic and Expert Condemnation: The Prime Minister’s pronouncements quickly drew criticism from academics, historians, and legal experts who pointed to the authoritarian nature of his language and the potential unconstitutionality of his proposed actions.
Supporting Data and Expert Analysis
The concerns raised by scholars and experts are rooted in a deep understanding of Albania’s historical trajectory and its legal framework.
- Historical Precedents: The comparisons drawn to the communist era are not arbitrary. The demonization of dissent, the labeling of protesters as foreign agents, and the imposition of collective punishment were hallmarks of the totalitarian regime. Historians like Hasan Bello highlight the deliberate use of such tactics to delegitimize opposition and consolidate power.
- Constitutional Guarantees: The Albanian Constitution explicitly protects fundamental rights such as freedom of movement, expression, and assembly. Legal scholars like Erold Hoxha point out that any restriction on these rights must adhere to strict legal procedures, typically involving judicial review, and cannot be unilaterally imposed by the executive branch.
- Psychological Impact of Rhetoric: Psychotherapist Neli Demi’s analysis underscores the divisive nature of Rama’s language. By creating an "us versus them" narrative, the Prime Minister, according to Demi, fosters an environment where fear and anger can justify the exclusion and marginalization of certain groups, undermining social cohesion.
- The Nature of Democratic Governance: Experts universally agree that in a democratic system, accountability for unlawful actions is individual and determined through due process. Collective punishment or the arbitrary imposition of sanctions, as suggested by Rama, fundamentally contravenes these principles.
Official Responses and International Implications
While the Prime Minister has not rescinded his statements, the international community and domestic opposition have reacted with concern.
- Opposition Scrutiny: Opposition parties have heavily criticized Rama’s rhetoric, labeling it as undemocratic and a threat to civil liberties. They have called for a more constructive dialogue with the students, focusing on addressing their legitimate concerns rather than resorting to threats and accusations.
- European Union Scrutiny: The mention of cooperation with EU countries to deny access to individuals raises significant questions about Albania’s commitment to democratic values and its EU accession aspirations. The EU has consistently emphasized the importance of respecting fundamental rights, freedom of expression, and the rule of law as prerequisites for membership. Any actions that appear to violate these principles could have serious repercussions for Albania’s integration process.
- Lack of Evidence: The absence of concrete evidence to support the Prime Minister’s claims of foreign interference has further fueled skepticism and criticism, suggesting that these accusations may serve as a political distraction or a tactic to discredit the student movement.
Implications for Albanian Society and Democratic Future
Prime Minister Rama’s escalating rhetoric carries profound implications for Albania’s democratic future and its social fabric.
- Erosion of Trust: The use of divisive language and the threat of punitive measures risk further alienating segments of the population from the government, eroding trust in democratic institutions and processes.
- Chilling Effect on Dissent: The fear of arbitrary sanctions and international repercussions could create a chilling effect on legitimate dissent, discouraging citizens from voicing their concerns and participating in public discourse.
- Undermining the Rule of Law: By suggesting extra-judicial measures and bypassing established legal procedures, the Prime Minister’s actions challenge the fundamental principles of the rule of law, which are crucial for a stable and just society.
- Damaged International Reputation: Albania’s pursuit of EU membership hinges on its adherence to democratic standards. The current trajectory, marked by authoritarian-leaning rhetoric, could jeopardize these efforts and damage the country’s international standing.
The coming weeks and months will be critical in determining whether Albania will navigate this period by upholding its constitutional commitments and democratic values or succumb to the echoes of its authoritarian past. The Prime Minister’s willingness to engage in genuine dialogue and respect the rule of law will be paramount in shaping the nation’s future.
