Yesterday at 5:30 p.m., the President of the Republic of Albania, Sali Berisha, accompanied by his wife Liri Berisha, departed for a working visit to the United States of America. He was accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Alfred Serreqi, and the Minister of Trade and Foreign Cooperation, Artan Hoxha. To bid farewell to President Sali Berisha, those present at Rinas Airport included the Chairman of the Presidium of the People’s Assembly, Pjetër Arbnori; the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Dr. Aleksandër Meksi; the deputy chairmen of the Presidium of the People’s Assembly, Tomorr Malasi and Shaqir Vukaj; the Deputy Chairmen of the Council of Ministers, Bashkim Kopliku and Rexhep Uka; deputies, other members of the Government, representatives of political parties and associations, etc. Also present were the secretary of the American Embassy in Tirana, Mr. Christofer Hill; the chargé d’affaires of the Italian Embassy in Albania; the ambassador of the Russian Federation; the representative of UNDP, etc. President Sali Berisha reviewed the national flag and, accompanied by Mr. Pjetër Arbnori and Mr. Aleksandër Meksi, reviewed the Guard of Honor.

The Dictionary of Contemporary Albanian defines it as follows: “A close political alliance between classes or social groups based on shared interests and aims.” The common interest was to unite these three parties, with their different programmes, in victory over communism (false socialism), which was successfully achieved. It is known, and is a fact, that the people themselves decided which political forces to vote for and in what proportions. However, we remind the socialist gentlemen and other opponents that the PD did not support this alliance merely as a diplomatic gesture. It supported it sincerely and did everything in its power for this alliance. Of course, even within a genuinely democratic party, there cannot be absolute unanimity, as in dictatorships and as among our socialists. This is evident in the PD and was clearly apparent at the First Congress of the PRSH. Nevertheless, the alliance truly existed, and the PD did a great deal for it—as much as was its share. Naturally, it would play the leading role because it was the largest party. We cannot call it being led by the nose or taking an anti-coalition stance simply because, of its own free will, it rejected the PRSH and PSD proposal to run on a joint list, with 70 percent of the candidates belonging to the PD. The Republicans must not forget either that as soon as their defeat was apparent (and this happened in successive elections), in the second round in Elbasan the PD immediately withdrew its candidate and transferred the democratic votes to the Republican, helping that party to have at least one MP, as it does today. Democrats have not taken these positions in order to keep these two parties under their thumb, because even within the PD people hold free, and even opposing, opinions. It did so because it wanted Albania to be freed from a coalition of parties. What percentage each party would receive depended on the people themselves and on their view of the PD, PSD and PRSH. But the PD never said a bad word about the positions of these parties or of any party in the alliance, even though their tactics and programmes are not the same as those of the PD. Nor did it help them to echo the PD in Parliament, because the PD deputies themselves do not all hold a single, unanimous position, as the socialists do. Anyone who has followed Parliament’s sessions knows this well. They have also noticed that on one issue or another, PSD deputies have taken a different position, while some have abstained. This is not only natural, In the whirlwind of categorically denying every achievement of democracy, doubts are being cast over the tripartite coalition of the PD, PSD and PRSH. Indeed, these doubts are being described as the end of the changes within this coalition. And yet, “strangely,” among the list of ambassadors there are also representatives of the PSD and PRSH?! So it seems its end has not yet come. But let us clarify the word alliance, which the PS also offered for Ballsh, with joint candidates representing the Republican Party, but these were not accepted. Had this party agreed to joint candidacies in Delvinë and Ballsh, it would today have two MPs in Parliament, as many as the PSD, or even more. Wasn’t this a desire for cooperation within the alliance on the part of the PD? In Peqin, the PD mounted a major campaign urging voters to give their votes to Mr. Skënder Gjinushi. And rightly so; …the First Congress of the PRSH. Nevertheless, the existing alliance was realistic; the DP did a great deal, as much as was expected of it. the nose or taking an anti-coalition stance that, when the elections were approaching, to the DP and 30 percent to the two other parties. Those who did not sufficiently understand the realities of those times thought that the DP had made a mistake. In fact, it acted maturely and wisely, because it knew not only its own membership but also its supporters well. Meanwhile, it knew the extent of the PSD’s support, and especially that of the PRSH, which was asking for even more than the PSD, around 17–18 percent of the list of candidates. This was because the PRSH leaders, for various reasons, thought they would exceed 15 percent; some even said they would win 25 percent of the electorate. They had based their calculations on a press report by deputy chairman Zef Bushati, who declared that they had 72,000 members. If each member persuaded one family member to vote for the PRSH, it would receive 140,000 votes. It is no wonder some of them hoped for even more. Should the DP have overridden its members and supporters and accepted these percentages offered to it, when reality pointed in the opposite direction? Absolutely not. It acted correctly. It wanted to test its strength, and it did: moreover, it again extended a hand to its allies, because it offered the Peqin constituency to the PSD chairman, who won even though he had the support of the Democrats. It also assigned Delvinë to Mr. Gordo of the PRSH, to support him, but he insisted on either Tepelenë or [text missing] accepted another place, while the relevant constituency of … Not only that, but the Republican Party … The programmes are not the same as that of the DP. It also did not help them in Parliament so that they would echo its position, because even the DP MPs do not act with complete unanimity, as the Socialists do. Anyone who has followed the parliamentary one issue or another, PSD MPs either take a different position or abstain. This is not only natural, but also necessary for a democratic state. So where is the DP’s dominance? Is it perhaps only in the fact that, now that the local elections have been held, it is taking as many leadership positions as it is entitled to according to the results of the November 22 vote? Certainly, it cannot and should not act against the will of the people, who entrusted it with governing the country. Would it have been better if there had not been this disparity in election percentages among the opposition parties? Of course, but this should be blamed more on the other parties than on the DP, since the people judged that they should not receive more votes. Therefore, the DP was and remains more concrete in this alliance, although alliances are always temporary, for as long as the issue of their formation remains unresolved. As long as communism has not yet been eradicated (because the PS exists as a worthy continuation of the PPSH), the alliance is necessary. Nevertheless, it must never be understood as dictatorial unity. In democratic alliances, compromise is for the common good, while each party retains its own characteristics and particular demands. And this is true: each seeks to win as many voters as possible for its own colours. Each seeks to obtain seats of representation and electoral support in proportion to its ability and its merits. This is neither dominance nor submission. PETRO DHIMITRI

— Rebuttal to “ZP” dated 9.6.1992 — Throughout the communist-socialist press, before and after the election, only one phrase was repeated: “We will be an honest opposition.” But can those who brought the country to this catastrophe, who preached class warfare, sabotage and other such things, be an “honest opposition”? If they were such, it would be in Albania’s interests. There can be no democratic society without an opposition. But the opposition here cannot be a democratic opposition. The communists proved this with the “rally” of 7 June 1992, held by the so-called confederation, which in reality is an insignificant force in Elbasan. Taking advantage of the dire economic situation inherited from communism, they are calling for sabotage and the destruction of public order. Their speaker in Elbasan, a certain Lleshi... the communist-party candidate in the election, openly called for the use of unconstitutional violence. “Let’s attack,” he said, “the executive committee.” This is indeed an illegal act, but “they (he meant the PD leaders) are illegal too.” Other speakers openly advocated disobeying the laws passed by Parliament and came close to openly calling for war. and came close to openly calling for war. The most amusing thing is that there were only 500 or 600 people at this “magnificent rally.” At first there were about 100 or 200 “blooming” communists, recognizable by their white hair. They have the democratic right to listen to and applaud their Enverist doctrines. As time passed, chairmen and “counter-rally-goers” ready to whistle and “have a laugh” began gathering. But the communists did not give them time to whistle. They continued shouting into the loudspeaker, regardless of the fact that nobody was listening to them. With this “enthusiasm” they listened to them. (Continued on page 2)

First of all, I want to thank you, Mr. (Ms.) Gjipali, for getting “Zëri i Popullit” to concern itself with me, an intellectual of Cham origin, whose people your beloved party (PP), now (PS), has never liked. Surely, since I did not [unclear] the Albanian village was destroyed by the party-state, which, with its Stalinist-Enverist adventurist programme, ruined our poor country. As for my dismissal, don’t get involved, Mr. (Ms.) Gjipali; you know the mechanism for appointing and dismissing other cadres. The party at the top [unclear] “the party’s grassroots organization.” Meanwhile, beneath the list of my “abuses” was concealed the shameless concern over my lack of contribution to feeding the party and state leaders in the district—which, to tell the truth, I did not do while I held that position (!) Mr. (Ms.) Gjipali! First of all, I want to thank you, Mr. Gjipali, for engaging «Zëri i Popullit» to deal with me, an intellectual of Çam origin. The people of that region, whom your beloved party (PP), now (PS), has never … cared for. Surely, since you do not even know me physically, you must have been prompted to ask about me, my biography, how I worked in the time of …, what I damaged and what I repaired, and so on. And surely you were informed, because informants are not lacking for your mother party (PP) and its renewed version (PS). You cannot live and work without them. I thought I would send my reply to the newspaper «Rilindja Demokratike», since your beloved newspaper, «ZP», has no preference for intellectuals who are as [text unclear] as we are, nor for the truths concerning us! I am the son of a worker who fed me until he died. He lived on dry bread and never enjoyed a single bright day, but suffered only contempt for being Çam, a contempt that was passed on to us, his children, by the opinion cultivated by your beloved party. You are concerned that I ruined KB Trevllazër. You are badly mistaken, Mr. Gjipali. Not only Trevllazër, but the whole … …the Albanian countryside was ruined by the party-state, which, with its adventurist Stalinist-Enverist programme, devastated our poor peasantry. As for my dismissal, do not get involved, Mr. Gjipali: you know the mechanism for appointing and dismissing “poor cadres.” The party above would give orders to the party below (the basic organization, the foundation of your party), and then, quite simply, the formal act would be carried out against the scapegoat; they would start in his name. That was also the case with me, as the disobedient chairman of the party’s No. 1 organization in the district; [text corrupt] the secretary of the bureau of the basic organization … In short, and more clearly, the stated reason was “KB Trevllazëri is not meeting its plan targets,” at a time (1988–1989) when all KBs were reporting figures, while the real reason for the concern of the Party leadership in the district was that I would not submit to the secretary of the bureau nearby, did not obey the bureau and the party’s basic organization. Meanwhile, behind the catalogue of my “abuses” was concealed the unscrupulous concern over my failure to contribute to feeding the party and government leaders in the district; the truth is that I did not do so while I held that position (!) Mr. Gjipali! As for the duties entrusted to me by the DP, do not worry. Those are the affairs of another party! In all my appointments I had no influential friend or comrade, nor any relative to protect me or speak well of me. I had only one friend: my work, and my honesty in carrying out my duty, like all Çam intellectuals and the Çam population. I wish you success in your work as deputy chairman of the PS in the district, in the “great” work of the Party you are renewing, and in sharpening revolutionary vigilance against the party in power. HAMDI MAHMUDI

THOSE WHO SERVED THE DICTATORSHIP HAVE NO REASON TO DEFEND WEAPONS OF WAR The members of the peaceful, political and democratic organization of veterans and invalids of the N.A.L.W. are deeply indignant at the statement made in the name of the veterans of the Durrës district and published in the newspaper «Zëri i Popullit», because they do not represent the veterans and invalids of the N.A.L.W., but rather a group of people manipulated by the Party of Labour yesterday and by the Socialist Party today; people who not only distinguished themselves during the war, [text unclear] the martyrs of the N.A.L.W., and failed to preserve their testament, but also acted against the families of the martyrs and those veterans and war invalids who remained faithful to the martyrs’ ideals and the aims of the antifascist war. These petty dictators, after retiring, found refuge in the National Committee and the Enver-socialist veterans’ committees in the districts, [corrupt text] where they have appropriated [text unclear] and are acting to the detriment of the new democracy [text unclear] of Enver. They are Enver fanatics. This is … and the reason for relinquishing the privilege of carrying weapons. They are demanding privileges even today. This demand is unjust, since those who carry weapons are a small part of the veterans, specifically those who rendered great services to E. Hoxha and stained their hands with the blood of the Albanian people. The majority of veterans, meanwhile, had their weapons taken away back in Enver’s time. Therefore, they have no right either to speak in the name of the veterans or to claim the right to carry weapons, at a time when the Democratic state has taken every measure to restore peace. Therefore, we veterans of the antifascist N.A.L.W., who have distanced ourselves from the Enver-socialist committee of war veterans, agree that weapons should be collected from everyone, [corrupt text] and that people should not follow in Enver’s footsteps. One part armed and the majority unarmed. We are all equal, and the demand of the times is for the people to be disarmed, with veterans setting a personal example. And this [text unclear] should be granted to ordinary veterans, not to those who have stained their hands with blood and today have usurped the leadership of the Enver-Socialist veterans’ committees. Yet they now speak in their name. They have no moral right to do so. And it must be seen who stands behind that macabre declaration: the leadership of the Socialist Party, since those who carry weapons are mainly fanatical members of the Socialist Party. A party that seeks to deepen the division within the veterans’ organization and to retain and use that section of veterans who are compro… (Continued on page 3)

Under this headline, the newspaper «Zëri i Popullit» begins on the front page and continues on page three with a programmatic article, «On the Eve of the First Congress of the PSSH.»(i) As can be seen, the heading of this article is: «On the Eve of the First Congress». After this, the first question naturally arises: what should the congress clarify? If this is the First Congress, then what kind of congress was the one that brought forth the renewed new party? We have now read in the newspaper «ZP» that the Tenth Congress of the PP was the congress that renewed this party and transformed it into a new-type socialist party. So, according to «ZP», the Tenth Congress of the PP was also the Tenth Congress of the PS, which now turns out not to be a new party (otherwise it would have required the approval of the Ministry of Justice), but a renewed Party of Labour. At least that is how «Zëri...» presented it to us, and it is well known that this newspaper never lies. As far as we know, a first congress can be organized by a new party, created in accordance with all the legal rules, not by a party of continuity, as the Socialist Party initially declared itself to be, since it did not fully distance itself from its parent party, the Party of Labour. This is our first question. The other questions are posed by the author himself, and he answers them himself. (Continued on page 4) Reception at the DP headquarters On Wednesday, June 10, the chairman of the DP, Mr. Ediard Salami, received in his office Mr. Masrur Imani, an Italian Nobel painter who is visiting our country privately these days. The meeting was warm and friendly. …gression … resp e …omic e …lli of Si… Secondly, …life effici… to le… to bo… crisis. …advantages …tës at the end … has …aviation, …gonte o… Bilo will …combat …bombard …gosllave. …but e… one … to …E ré… now, …in …te ush… …pay …countries …think … unarmed… …rrore …gra… … an… …