I know only one man sent by Ramiz Alia into the student movement and into the PP, and this man is
SALI BERISHA
(Continued from the previous issue) SOME DISTORTIONS AND THE NON-RECONCILIATION OF THE PROBLEMS MUST BE DESCRIBED POLITICALLY.
AREN DEMETI
(Continued from the previous issue)
SOME DISTORTIONS AND THE NON-RECONCILIATION OF THE PROBLEMS MUST BE DESCRIBED POLITICALLY.
The responsibilities which he was taking on in the name of that entire social stratum should be shaped on the basis of the general interest, placing it above every personal interest. That is how he demanded it and declared it, especially because of his stance against repression. Although he fought on, even with harsh accusations for the “fault” of the changes, at least not through any animosity toward the state or the previous model.
Koha jonë explains the matter carefully so as to truly support with arguments what it says. Regarding the deputy’s request and the other demands, he put forward proposals that did not belong to the students, but could have been voiced by many independent intellectuals.
In those days he was a rather well-known public figure. He met with students, with professors, with workers and with representatives of various professions. He did not present himself only as a PP man, but as a politician speaking in the name of pluralism.
What remains to be noted is that in some of his public statements there have been fluctuations and inconsistencies. At times he has been presented as if he were defending profound changes, at times as a cautious man seeking not to disturb the old balances.
Nevertheless, even his opponents admit that he played a role in directing part of the student movement and in bringing it closer to the Democratic Party. What is contested is the nature of this role and his links with Ramiz Alia.
Many of those who speak about this issue today give different versions. Some say that he was sent there, others that he acted as an ambitious politician seeking to gain ground in the opposition. The conclusion is not easy and requires further evidence.
If the student movement had had another leadership, the events might have taken a different course. But in the conditions of that time his figure remained central and his influence evident.
For many, he became a symbol of a rapid transition from the old system to political pluralism. For others, he was the man who knew how to profit from the political voids of the time.
This debate remains open and continues to stir controversy.