— “ZP” takes the motion supporters under its wing — It is well known that the former communists and the Socialists, their artificial offspring, have spared no insults or slander against all those Democrats who express opinions and ideas against dictatorship and its stale manoeuvres of renewal. There are now many names of people who have been insulted and offended, even with pornographic howling. But in this article I do not want to analyse their reasons. No, I want to focus on the occasions when the Socialists take them under their protection. How is it possible that those protagonists, whom they hated not long ago, have now become good in their eyes and are being defended by them? What does this show? Could it be that the Socialists really have changed and renewed themselves? We would wholeheartedly wish for this, because if they were like European socialists, we would find it difficult to distinguish between them and the Democrats, since both sides are democrats. The country would not be experiencing this great, politically aggravating tension, and we would move towards Europe faster, with greater cooperation and joint action. I believe that any true Democrat can get along better with gentlemen Craxi and Mitterrand than with the deceit and tactics of our Socialists, who are far from the ideals of the world leaders we mentioned. Life proves that they remain as they were; naturally, with some changes dictated by pluralism. They remember Frrok Çupi (who was a very good journalist), but he held the view that “RD” should be a newspaper in opposition to its own party. It is one thing to work on problems that are going wrong. That helps the party. It is quite another to oppose it as an opposition. That does not happen with a party newspaper, nor in a democratic country. Private newspapers are another matter: they have their own aims and conduct their own politics according to the grouping to which they belong. That is why Mr Frrok left, and precisely because he held these views—which are ideals for the Socialists—they are now defending him. But instead of defending these people, or that person, let them turn “ZP” into a platform where Nano is criticised and the actions of Ruci in the events in Shkodër are analysed; let them write about the exoduses and their own mistakes, or let them allow one person in the leadership of the PS to do the hammering and another the shoeing. Of course they will not allow it, because they are not stupid. But they should not forget that there are intelligent people in other parties too, who need not allow those parties to be attacked from within through “opposition” or “moderates”, using the same arguments the Socialists use—whether about the countries where pluralism was permitted, nostalgia for having been nurtured under dictatorship, or the shared communist struggle and progress that this or that person may have experienced, even if that person was once a member of the PPSH. The Socialists did not choose this path, because exposing this group would cost them dearly. This event inside the DP need not remind anyone of the red rulers, because first and foremost—and this is the main point—Enver Hoxha initially removed from office those he thought were his opponents; then he arrested and sentenced them, some to execution by firing squad, others to imprisonment or lifelong internment, and not only them personally, but their whole families as well. Do not forget that the communist Fadil Paçrami was sentenced to such a long term only because, at a meeting in the club of the League of Writers and Artists of Albania, he asked Comrade Ramiz Alia: “Which is more dangerous, liberalism or conservatism?” Comrade Nexhmije Hoxha was also in the hall, and the report made by the two collaborators of the dictatorship was accurate. Meanwhile, the opposition members of the DP, although they had given the first signs in good time, remained in the leadership until the cup overflowed; they will be free, honoured and respected citizens, respected by those who love them. This is normal and democratic because, ultimately, they themselves know that this is as far as we go with the party programme. Therefore, just as their action is democratic, so too does leaving the party within this framework remain democratic, since they were and remain free people! It is another matter if the files are opened (provided they have not been destroyed, altered and made as the communist Sigurimi wanted): this or that person may turn out to be ... just as other politicians and leaders recruited in Enver’s time may turn out to be. Perhaps this is why you, Mr Kreshpan Puli, who must be a person of ... , also remember the former Political Bureau. You have the right not to part from it, as long as you remain in their party ranks and take it as changed. some changes dictated by pluralism. So why are the so-called “moderates” of the Democratic Party defending them? What troubles the Socialist gentlemen, and why are they so distressed for those who were once at the sharp end of their denigrating criticism? First, because, surprisingly, they agree on some opinions. The motion supporters make almost the same criticisms of the DP as the Socialists do. What could be better than having people inside a party who attack it using the very arguments you put forward? Let no reader misunderstand me. By writing this, I do not mean that the motion supporters or those who separated themselves from the DP, now or earlier, were planted by the Socialists. I have no right to say that, because I have no evidence. But their ideas did suit the Socialists perfectly. “moderates”, using arguments also used by the Socialists. The fact that the motion supporters were immediately defended by the PS before the ink had dried on the decision to expel them shows that this party had an interest in people with such views continuing to fight the rival party from within. This very defence is an infallible barometer showing that the DP was absolutely right to take the position it did, since it has stung the Socialists too. At the same time, on this issue as well, the Socialists showed themselves to be hasty. It would have been much better if they had kept quiet. That is, if they had treated it as an internal matter of the DP, because it makes no difference to the Socialists what this or that Democrat says, so long as they do not come near them. Ultimately, silence would have dispelled to a considerable extent the ordinary people’s suspicions about the game played by the former—

— Working meeting with President Berisha — A representative group from the League of Journalists of Albania was received at a special meeting on Tuesday by the President of the Republic of Albania, Mr Sali Berisha. The chairman of the L.G.SH, Mr Sokol Muho, spoke to the President about the journalists’ association, which, as a democratic support, will also support the reform and all the steps being taken to build a new society. At the very informal and constructive meeting, a number of concerns affecting Albanian journalism as a whole were raised. Current developments call for journalists to unite on the country’s major issues and on nationwide issues. A pressing concern raised was the establishment of premises for the League of Journalists, their training and specialisation, securing paper supplies, and the possibility of an independent press outlet that would help eliminate the suppression of some newspapers, etc. The journalists’ representatives agreed that there is considerable ongoing abuse of the notion of press censorship, which does not correspond to the truth. Neither the state nor the League of Journalists protects journalists who break the law or engage in overt abuses. Mr Sali Berisha called the concerns raised legitimate and assured those present of his support in resolving them as soon as practicable. “Meeting with you,” he said, “gives me the opportunity to express my deep gratitude for the contribution of Albanian journalists to the establishment of democracy and the overthrow of the totalitarian system. I am personally interested in Albania moving towards freedoms, so that all of Democratic Albania may enjoy them, and so that freedom of speech and of the press is not infringed and all current developments can be experienced more accurately. On the other hand, I publicly value this meeting. I am glad to see the development of democratic culture. We do not demand that the press refrain from criticising the government or the state administration. Like you, I am happy that we have reached a time when no one in Albania of the Albanians is infallible.” “The building of a new society,” President Berisha added, “would require a powerful contribution from the press in support of reform. The reform itself, as assessed by specialists from the IMF and the World Bank, is exceptionally clear: a better state is the future. Support for reform by everyone is support for society and the nation. “The Meksi government liberalised prices. This step has nothing to do with filling the state budget, but with a major task: in the future, to move from foreign aid to starting our own production. Therefore, we must face sacrifices now for the sake of a significant change that will take place soon. “The Albanian Parliament,” Mr Berisha said, “still has a great deal of work to do. There are still laws to pass. In this context, the press law will also be reviewed, and journalists’ rights and duties will be specified. I repeat once again that freedom of the press must not be infringed, but I cannot fail to mention some newspapers that promote destabilisation or incite confrontations; neither the League of Journalists nor the state itself should be indifferent to such cases of incitement.”

— Former members of the Political Bureau were also collaborators of the Sigurimi — In issue No. 13792 of ZP, Mr Beqir SKRELI published the article — Beqir SKRELI published the article — Beqir ... the article “Beqir SKRELI published the article”? To make your statement as convincing as possible, you, Mr. QIR Skreli, say that “In the platform of the former Political Bureau on State Security, it is essentially stated that members of the Party of Labour cannot be considered collaborators of the Security Service and the police.” I do not know you, nor have I ever heard your name. A journalist’s or commentator’s credibility depends on the accuracy and truthfulness of what they write. This is the alpha of journalistic ethics. Since you are stirring up issues concerning the State Security platform, you must have been a security officer, a police operative, or a party committee secretary in some district or division. Only then would you have had the right to become familiar with the secret platform. The problem is not what you have said. Had you told the truth, had you not lied and deceived, you would have been respected. But you lie, Mr. Qir; you lie in broad daylight, without even blushing. This is immoral, Mr. Qir. I do not believe it is an innocent mistake, or adolescent nonsense. That is why I say you are lying deliberately. This is why I wanted to reply to you, Mr. Qir Skreli. For your sake and for the readers of ZP, let it be clear that what you claim is not true at all. The platform you mention does not let military personnel who abandoned the country by hijacking a ship from the military fleet of the Republic of Albania go free; nor does it provide a legal basis for a rapist criminal to be sentenced to one or two years in prison, and so on. Here you have not joined your protest, as you mention to us, while Albanians are protesting to draw attention to the unlawful “checks” carried out by the authorities. Should you not also have reacted and acted against the earlier violations committed by the justice authorities? Further on in the protest, still in the spirit of bureaucratic self-justification, it is said that you, Mr. Haxhija, were elected by the democratic parliament upon the President’s proposal, and that you emerged from the university, a center of the student movement. Does the fact that you were elected by parliament upon the President’s proposal make you all-powerful, so that no answer is given to questions about favors? Just because you have a clean past, as you say, does not mean that the work of the justice authorities today is equally clean. As for your claim that you come from the “center of the student movement,” I do not think that constitutes an argument. What is more, the very faculty you come from was the one that opposed the student movement most strongly. I do not mean by this that you opposed it too, because I do not know what you did at that time; perhaps you, too, joined the student movement, as some lecturers and students from that faculty did from the very beginning. But I mean that while what you write might perhaps count as an argument for any other faculty, it does not hold for the Faculty of Law. Finally, I want to stress that it would be better for people to convince the public, with arguments (if they have any), that the problems for which the justice authorities are accused do not exist, rather than stage protests that resemble “the dignified removal of heroes from the stage.”

If someone were to appear on stage to interpret a work of art, then they would be a critic, with observations, discussions, suggestions, and even criteria by which some might purse their lips at the interpretation of the words, the way they had been delivered, the music, diction and intonation, which might be hoarse, false, and so on—matters belonging exclusively to the actor’s craft. But we all know why Mr. Blerim Çela has appeared on screen several times. Economic corruption, not excluding political and moral corruption, has been laid bare before us. And so, Albanian society as a whole is now facing its threat. Today, it is precisely the dedicated and self-sacrificing work of the modest group of employees of the State Audit Commission that stands in defense of this society. Given the marked shortage of technical and material resources, equipment and personnel, it is very difficult to tackle the iceberg of corruption. But with the help of ordinary, honest people and employees, the blows against it are effective and produce results. But who are those who today attack and stigmatize the Audit Commission and Mr. Çela through ZP and Koha jonë? They are those who have the fly of corruption under their feet. They are those bodies and officials, those individuals representing the forces that are trying to compensate for their loss of political power by gaining economic power. They are precisely the ones who, over the past two years, stole and destroyed so much in this country’s state apparatus. It is an understatement to say that, in most cases, these stigmatizing attacks, with their vulgar and unprincipled tone, focus on Mr. Çela’s appearance rather than on his work and dedication. This is a maneuver to distract attention from the very heart of the matter. I ask you, gentlemen or comrades “stigmatizers”: if Mr. Çela appeared on screen smiling, said nice, eloquent things to everyone, and in the end reported no figures or facts, would he be “stigmatized” as much as he is today? Perhaps then you would declare Mr. Çela a hero (heaven forbid)... The people put it simply: “Look at the work, not the coat.” Let us “rejoice” in that…

— The Prosecutor General, by interfering in the rights of others under the guise of defending justice, takes on the role of a weak lawyer. A few days ago I read, published in “ZP”, the protest by the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Albania, Mr Haxhia. I do not want this to be taken as a re-vision, and still less do I seek to defend anyone; I simply want to discuss things that strike me. First of all, I cannot understand the reason for the protest, because, as far as I can make out, its heading reads: “Protest of the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Albania against ...”. Since this may be a printing error, it draws my attention to the substance of this issue raised by Mr Haxhia, ... Publication, Mr Haxhin, is the editorial office’s right, and for that you should not protest to the President. Nevertheless, it seems to me that your protest, published in “ZP” under the title “The judiciary under dictatorship should not be in a position to do anything against the publication or against Blerim Çela, because you need not fear that Mr Çela has the authority to impose his dictatorship” on the justice institutions. At the beginning of the protest, you rightly state that the independence of the legislative, judicial and executive powers is one of the most important factors in a democracy; but, judging by the way the protest is formulated, it seems as though this truth is welcomed only as a self-justifying defence. Does the Prosecutor General perhaps think that, because he heads an independent body, he is not accountable for anything and does not have to answer for the actions of the bodies he directs? That is precisely the spirit in which the protest is framed, and I do not like it. Recently, a number of accusations have been directed at the justice institutions, not only by Mr Çela. Yet the Prosecutor General protests against these accusations without first clarifying the facts of the issues. The protest says that “the idea must now be firmly impressed on everyone’s mind that the judge, prosecutor and investigator are subject to the law and no one else.” I do not dispute this, but the point is that these judges, prosecutors and investigators are precisely the ones whose failure to apply the law and whose other violations, as far as I know, are monitored by the Prosecutor General’s Office, and are accompanied by powers and ... Mr Haxhia. By defending the justice institutions without arguments, he assumes the role of a weak lawyer. Of course, Mr Prosecutor, you are not obliged to explain every article that may appear in a newspaper, but I think it would be better if, before protesting that your rights have been violated, you ... Prosecutor General’s Office, and are accompanied by powers and ... violated, you ...