Experts in history and psychotherapy see the prime minister’s belligerent language toward protesters as an attempt at collective stigmatization, similar to the practices of the class struggle before the 1990s.
Following the escalation of the protests and violent clashes with police, Edi Rama has used increasingly harsh tones toward the students.
Të lidhura
None found
According to assessments, his statements divide and punish, going beyond warnings about the enforcement of the law.
Initially, without presenting evidence, the prime minister claimed that the mobilization of young people was being encouraged by foreign services, including Russia and Iran, or by the ANTIFA movement, which US President Donald Trump has declared a terrorist organization.
Later, Rama threatened to withdraw scholarships, restrict services and take other measures that directly affect rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
“We will close off many of your accesses at airports, hotels, trains, all means of transport, and of course we will cooperate, and we have begun working with the countries of the European Union to ban you from accessing those countries as violent people,” he declared.
This language has raised questions not only about whether the measures threatened are consistent with the Constitution and the law, but also about their similarities to Albania’s totalitarian past, historians note.
Hasan Bello, a researcher of Albanian political history, particularly the communist period, told BIRN that the prime minister is portraying the protesters as enemies of the people, agents and collaborators of foreign powers, just as in the period before the 1990s.
According to Bello, Rama is seeking to weaken the students’ legitimacy through exclusionary language, threats and the division of society, in a way reminiscent of the “class struggle.” He warned that this could lead to rising social tensions and repression by law-enforcement agencies.
Çelo Hoxha, director of the Institute for the Study of the Crimes and Consequences of Communism, sees signs of authoritarian culture in Rama’s statements. According to him, the prime minister’s conduct reflects the personalization of power, to the point where he presents himself as the “source of legal authority for everything.”
“Dictators issue orders and directives without taking into consideration the legal infrastructure in force,” Hoxha said, linking this to action beyond democratic boundaries.
Lecturer Enriketa Papa described this rhetoric as harmful and counterproductive, especially at a time when social tensions are high.
“Beyond the reminiscences of a culture of violence and an authoritarian mindset inherited from the communist past, the rhetoric fuels conflict rather than reducing tensions and promoting social peace,” Papa told BIRN.
Exclusionary language has historically served totalitarian regimes to divide accepted citizens from those declared enemies.
During Albania’s 45-year dictatorship, this practice was known as the “class struggle” and was used to portray the exclusion and punishment of part of the population as necessary for the protection of society.
Psychotherapist Neli Demi sees Rama’s rhetoric as stigmatization that goes beyond condemning acts of violence and creates the impression that there is a group of citizens who should be excluded from social life.
“This language feeds the division between ‘us,’ the acceptable citizens, and ‘them,’ the people from whom we must protect ourselves,” Demi said.
He added that fear may push the public to accept exclusion more readily, while anger may make humiliating the other person seem deserved.
According to Demi, in a democracy, political leaders must set limits on violence, but without conflating the perpetrator of an illegal act with a protester or political opponent. The prime minister’s rhetoric, he said, risks deepening mistrust and conflict.
“Individual responsibility requires evidence and individual examination, while collective stigmatization, as in the case of Prime Minister Rama’s reactions, erases these distinctions,” Demi told BIRN.
He emphasized that history and psychology have repeatedly shown that force can impose compliance, but it does not create trust.
The Albanian Constitution protects fundamental rights and freedoms. Their restriction is permitted only by law, in the public interest or for the protection of the rights of others, and must be proportionate to the circumstances that require it.
The fundamental law also guarantees free movement within and outside the country, as well as the right to due process when an individual’s constitutional and legal rights, freedoms or interests are violated.
Historians emphasize that responsibility for violations of the law is established through legal procedures and by the relevant institutions, not through publicly announced political lists or orders.
Hoxha notes that the prime minister’s political will cannot determine legal consequences for citizens.
According to him, the threat to bar specific individuals from entering the EU demonstrates deficiencies in Rama’s legal training; his wishes are not normative acts, but “signs of totalitarianism.”
He added that free movement is a natural and constitutional right and therefore cannot be restricted by executive decision. Such a restriction can be imposed only by a court and on a legal basis.
According to Hoxha, the demand that protesters be billed for the damage or that parents be fined instead of their minor children cannot be approved by political or executive decision either. The legal procedure must be followed before a court.
Hasan Bello considers the measures proposed by Rama against the protesters to be unconstitutional and contrary to European democratic values.
“It is in his personal honor and a legal obligation to abandon the language used so far and the reminiscences that recall what the communist regime used against students in 1991,” Bello concluded.
