On 18 July 1992 our newspaper called Mr. Abdi Baleta “the only personification in Albania of yellow journalism,” in an article by our journalist Xhemal Kaponi. Thanks to his brother, the first-level party secretary of the automotive enterprise, Mr. Fejzi Baleta, currently residing in our neighborhood, who must still have kept the habit of party denunciation, it has been learned that Mr. Abdi Baleta was deeply offended by the designation given to him and has allegedly spread the word that the author of the article is manipulated and that its real author is Mr. Preç Zogaj.[?] We can understand that the cause of this reaction may be the fact that we called him a yellow journalist, although without claiming that he is the only one of his kind. Moreover, we called him the only personification of the yellow press because that is how he has proved to be, according to the classic model of his publication ever since the time when he was equipped with authorization to move and act in the name of the organization eager to compromise with dictatorship and when, with the same authorization signed by Mr. Sabri Godo, he entered prisons and internment camps to give courage and consolation to those suffering under the reform of the communist elite. Nothing has changed in this nature and mission of his, even if the forms of presentation change. The work, capacity and revolutionary spirit of Mr. Abdi Baleta have constituted a very important link in carrying out the plan to establish a pluralist order and democracy with pluralism in this country. It is he, and he alone, together with his very close friends and worthy followers, such as Messrs. Gëzim Erebara, Nasho Jorgaqi and Servet Pëllumbi, who decisively pushed Albania into the irreversible process of democratic “rotation.” He is the one who, thanks to his valuable revolutionary experience, is an accomplished specialist in agreeing and reaching understanding even with those who have committed atrocities against their own people, in finding common ground even with that part of the hardline nomenklatura. He is the inspirer of the bold line of the Democratic Center Union and of his party, Sympathy with Them “wide and far,” the most notable motivator of the article “If Everyone Agrees with the PD.”[?] It is he who lights the way for his followers with thoughts and guiding words for events of such high historical intensity as “The Hunger Strike for Removing Enver Hoxha’s Name from the University” and “The True Initiators of the Victory of Democracy Were Those Who Put in Enver’s Name,” both published in the sharpest and most sharpened organ of neo-communism, “Koha jonë.” As can be understood, Mr. Abdi Baleta has gotten it into his head and keeps turning it over in his mind that we dedicated our journalist’s article to him solely because he is a friend of Mr. Sabri Godo. Here he is gravely mistaken. As he may have learned himself or from some clarification by Mr. Sabri Godo, we respect him greatly, but not to the extent of giving Mr. Abdi Baleta the right, for this reason, to insult us as “hawks of hysteria and class struggle” and to throw us out of the parliamentary correspondents’ room if we are not mistaken, us Albanians. Since Mr. Abdi Baleta has convinced himself that we are capable of calling him a devout neo-communist because of his political maneuvers and his muddled and vague political writings, let us inform him that this assessment of him is based on the following public opinion: Mr. Baleta’s contribution to prolonging the life of the coalition government with the communists and to creating the kind of opposition that suits the leadership of parliament, the government and their comrades; his muddled writings that are allowed to appear without censorship in the press of the communist world; his shivers for the so-called “pure” socialism; his solidarity expressed through silence with the ridiculous, disappointing national campaign for the “taking of the PD fortress” if the people believe the grotesque propaganda of the neo- and paleo-communist revanchists; his engagement, based on dialogue and understanding, with forces that call themselves such and not to uproot communism and truly build a democratic and pluralist order. These are what we consider the fundamental characteristics of neo-communist journalism and of Mr. Abdi Baleta’s communist devotion. A FRESH WORK BY PREÇ ZOGAJ AND THE LEADERSHIP FOR OUR THREAT OF HISTORY Work, capacity, revolutionary spirit and fidelity to the beautiful communist ideal—this is what our neo-communists call Mr. Abdi Baleta’s whims, with which he supposedly set in motion the history of victories for democracy, the rule of law and the market economy. We are thinking that, despite the hero’s and dissident’s devotion that Mr. Abdi Baleta’s comrade has cooked up for him, we must absolutely know what public opinion is. This is the only way to be fully informed, as we nonbelievers in revolutionary morality so much like, morality which is the greatest and most reliable force in the whole evolution of human ethics. The only public opinion we know, and which we think includes him, is the opinion expressed about him, if I am not mistaken, in the newspaper “Bashkimi,” which includes him on three occasions and in three different ways: as devoted to the magnificent ideal of socialism and Marxism-Leninism; as persecuted and sacrificed by two dogmatisms, that of the people who were in front politics and in the “Initiative Commission” and that of the “heartbroken” communists with the “mistakes of Comrade Enver”; and as second only to Mr. Sabri Godo on the list of communists who are understanding the role of Marxism-Leninism in the overthrow of communism.

Ika data 24 July 1992 Radio Tirana announced the results of state inspection after the intervention at TV Peshkopi. It was said that the information given on TV Peshkopi and relayed by a local amateur named Dauti, presented as a refugee, to whom anguish and one hundred thousand lek had been given for an invented bill, is fabricated. But the same one, that same Dauti, so as not to remain a poor cow without a voice, if belatedly but emboldened by Mr. Sopotere’s[?] activity, on 25 July in Tirana made a statement, in which he says, among other things, that “as soon as I arrived in Albania I noticed that people are terrified of the police.” This by no means places state control, from the chief down to the head officer, in the position of an institution oriented toward serving truth and the state, since “the notices of TV KUKËS and TV Peshkopia are false,” and it has ended the matter there. In short: state control says: we carried out the inspection, we found this and that. As for me, I did nothing, saw no car, no warehouse, no hidden door and no special transaction; but let us suppose that since state control has entered the game we should say: “indeed, that is how it is!” On the contrary, since the state body that denied such a serious thing gave no names of persons, no places, no figures, no evidence, but only a general announcement, doubt naturally remains. It is especially natural when it is known that the public has long been hearing and seeing how controls are announced on the one hand, while on the other every trace of personal responsibility disappears. HYSNI MILLOSHI RELEASED FROM THE GRIP OF ARREST It is not known, and official sources report that Mr. Hysni Milloshi was accused of illegal possession of weapons. Milloshi, after having been placed under arrest by the law-enforcement bodies, was released again without the full decision, its reasoning and the responsible persons who took this decision becoming known to the public. Is this a routine case of procedure or another example of lack of transparency? That remains to be clarified. Why was he detained and why was he released? Why are certain measures announced with a lot of noise and then everything disappears without leaving a trace in official information? If these are simple questions for the public, the institutions should have answered them before the news was published. Are we asking the television a question? Is the anchored unconcern not given by television? Or does the world not react?!

A few days ago in Gjirokastër and Tirana there was a strike very similar to the one that took place five or six months earlier at the “Traktori” plant. In one case it involved the enterprise workers who moved quickly to take the protest in hand; in the other, the workers of the plant who decided to stop work until they received answers to several demands. In both cases the strike appeared as a strong instrument of pressure. The transition is extremely difficult and the government and the Court are right, indeed let us not make it harsher in any way, since, with regard to this typical example, it is not able to provide as serious a solution as under the previous power. The method seems to be necessary to be understood even by the simplest people and to set in motion a broader social reflection. What the strange and sharp agreements with the unions aim at, what is expected from the alliances and from the grand promises, is unclear to a large part of the public. Yet when economic efforts do not bear fruit and wages remain low while prices are high, the situation becomes explosive. And then the strike turns from a theoretical right into a practical reaction. In a country where the new institutions are still fragile, where private capital is only just emerging, where state enterprises are being dismantled and unemployment is increasing, strikes cannot be seen merely as excess. They are a sign that society is under tension. (Continued on p. 2)

The text below, with all the first elections of the last twenty years, is a kind of attempt to highlight once again some of the figures that have acquired a special meaning in the political debate. In particular, the author focuses on the comparison between numbers, results, claims and realities that emerged after the elections. Different figures circulate in discussions, around tables, in institutions and in the press. Some are used to support a thesis, others to bring down an opponent. In this sense, the elections have left behind not only government and opposition, but also a battle of numbers. In many cases, the public has grown tired of the endless interpretations of percentages, seats, mandates and statistical comparisons. Nevertheless, when figures become arguments, they must be examined with special care. Otherwise, democracy itself risks being used as the decoration of a new propaganda. Is it enough to win on paper with numbers? Or must those numbers themselves be understandable, verifiable and trustworthy for public opinion? That is the question this article tries to make visible.