It’s always a problem for a politician when his activity, power or administration of institutions doesn’t look at him with the eye of escape. It’s a problem when, at the moment of political victory, you don’t see reality with your escape eye.
The difference between a civil politician and that tribal is that, since the moment of victory, the first one thinks about how to escape with honor, while the Tribal politician, even when he leaves, thinks about how to win without honor. The difference lies in civilian responsibility, which translates into political responsibilities. The first one knows this responsibility and acts accordingly; the second, although he knows it, abuses it. Unfortunately, the Tribal politician has been the model of our transition, he has become an exclusive model of power, a transitional model that never reaches the destination, which stands there and looks at others with the eye of escape, because his destination is not democracy. It’s power.
Since 2013, when this Socialist majority led Eddie Rama won the election of a million slaps on another tribal leader, not only did he never see this popular belief with the naked eye, but also the tremendous shocks that have accompanied her power from Saimir Tahiri to Lefter Coca, from Alqi Bllac to Vanjush Dako, from Arben Ahmetaj to Ilir Beqaj, from Jurgis Cirey to Erion Veliaj, from the Ballunda Vüra Hyrín, serve as evidence of even fighting corruption. In this logic, it doesn’t matter any more, nor does political responsibility matter, it matters the continuation of power and the conviction that anyone and nothing will stop us, it won’t stop me. And then here we are at the point that the scale requires more cases, until the exceptions to order breed, and when they breed, then order should be considered.
Nobody today is able to determine, after 13 years in power, how many cases of elected political figures, appointed and promoted by Prime Minister Rama himself, will have to fill the front pages of the media until individual responsibility becomes political responsibilities of the system and the leader who has chosen these people. The effort to separate Prime Minister Rama from his administration, that supposedly all problems and mismanagement have been caused by the failure of public administration, is the most ridiculous alibi. It’s not even political as a thesis. It’s on the borders of three-ball provincialism.
I mean, that’s why Rama suddenly, only after 13 years in power, found that it takes a fight with Albanians. Every time in Albania there’s been civic or student protests that those parties love him so many times Rama has distanced himself from him. It’s always his administration and never he’s. He has even rushed to be with the protesters in the square against Rama himself. Even at the last protest, he took over flamingos. As his people’s scandals cover the media, he distances himself and comes to his aid. The problem is that so many hooks and plums are fermented that they have already become a moldy, toxic jam. There is a rule that teaches us how to share individual and sporadic corruption cases with an entire corrupt system that ends with the capture of the state.
It is when the phenomenon becomes continuous, systematic and then becomes systemic by moving higher and higher into the state pyramid. In this case the alibi doesn’t function that responsibility is personal, because the long duration of time and the large number of high levels raise questions: What are the mechanisms of prevention that the government undertaken after scandals were made public? What did the control institutions do? Were political image selection procedures reformed? Why is the nature of the scandal almost the same for 13 years? Not knowing anything, much more being prime minister, is more serious than being an accomplice in the scandal, because the co-operater has once broken the law, while the one who knows nothing has broken it several times.
There’s always an uninformed author. I didn’t know it’s heavier because I charge you with a type of responsibility: why didn’t you know? Unawarely, the subject of accountability itself becomes political guilt. In all cases of institutional, public or private responsibilities, responsibility follows the path of hierarchy by reaching the top, where the problem should be eliminated. In each hierarchy, responsibility goes up, only in Albania, when it reaches the top, it suddenly becomes personal. This is the problem of power that you do not see yourself in the eye of escape because over time, you begin to see the state with the owner’s eye.
If the constitution charges the prime minister with control of the ministers’ work, to what extent could it be used politically I did not know as justification, because it is normal for a democracy to pursue the path of hierarchy, not just the author, but the power it is tasked with controlling and preventing. The claim that without knowledge is innocence is dangerous for the model of how we built our country. We have left the crime only individual, while the responsibility of the state’s functioning has been left to orphans. Following the first scandal is usually the author, but after the tenth, the system that allowed the 11th is required.
And here, we may rightly feel that it is unrecognizable for one or two occasions, but not when the scandal becomes the system itself. How many times may a prime minister not know before he knew he would stop being an explanation? How could a long-standing and centralized prime minister not know information? Not knowing the way you built the power, that’s what you’re saying.
With the prime minister’s excuse, we deviance that any government success is the product of leadership, while every power scandal is an individual’s exclusive product. So, we’re his architects, and in scandals we’re just random passersby. No indeed! But when the corrupting pattern is repeated for years, doubt moves from person to mechanism that produces it. Then you have to look at the architecture of power, and this one always has a political architect. /Gazeta Panorama/
