ACQJ editorial office
Whenever there is an anniversary of Lasgush's birth or death, you will usually find articles about him online, and among them, among the most interesting, is a telegram dated February 25, 1972, from the National Library, addressed to those who do not silently bow to the weight of the regime. In the contents of the telegram, " comrade Lazar Gusho " is held accountable for keeping a book out of circulation. The library, using a contrived, empty and dry language, tells him that this burdens him with responsibility for not distributing the book; the attitude is inappropriate; it does not serve proletarian discipline; thus the book fund is wasted and at the very end, as if to threaten him, they remind him that this constitutes a criminal offense.
It has become customary these days for the Prime Minister to target some magistrate. These days it was the turn of Judge Ligoraq Toshi. “Ligoraq” as he called him. He said “ Judge Ligoraq certainly did not see fit to side with the community trapped by this illegal construction and did not even consider that, oh my God, in the event of a fire this store would turn into a murderous barricade, insurmountable for both residents and firefighters .”
First thought! Do you know, comrade Ligoraq, that illegal construction is detrimental to the community? Do you know, comrade Ligoraq […]? This is where the memory takes you after reading the Prime Minister's letter of warning to the magistrate. Beyond the problems of the blind, which are not only such but also have other burdens, she remembers the letter of warning of the National Library in '72. They are like two drops of water. The Prime Minister's mastery of the art of speech is a universally accepted fact and one wonders when reading such reactions. Then, she remembers and gives him the right that he has remained faithful to the concept of the letter of warning and the purpose is elsewhere.
Judge Ligoraq Toshi, and others before him (magistrates Elsa Gjeli, Klarent Demiraj, Hazbi Balliu), cannot be Lasgushi, however they have one thing in common. They are all victims of the well-known doctrine of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Author Yu Hua, in the book “The Man Who Sells Blood” writes that: “ It has been some time since the Great Cultural Revolution has been taking place and only now have I begun to understand something of what it is. In fact, it is a settling of old scores. So, if someone has ever offended you, you write them a note and stick it on the walls by the roadside. On the note […] you can accuse them of whatever you want. These days there are neither courts nor police, the only thing in abundance are accusations. Make an accusation as you please, write it on the note and there is no need to deal with it anymore, it is others who give them the death penalty .”
Reading Yu Hua, it is easy to understand that it is not that the Prime Minister does not know, on the contrary, he simply wants it. The similarity between the lightning bolt on the wall of the National Library and the modern one in the personal space on social networks, they are from different times, in different forms but have the same purpose. The lightning bolt is a doctrine and as such must be implemented through several steps to achieve the goal.
The first is the language used. It is the same, equally lukewarm, fabricated, devoid of factual content, stripped of names, stigmatizations (Gjeli, Balliu), and populism. In the end, the structure of the writing is the same. Just like Lasgushi who is reminded of the Criminal Code, comes the insult and threat, calling him incompetent, irresponsible, "without a homeland" and that measures will be taken in the future.
Through language we come to the content. In classical and modern news bulletins there are no facts or contradictions of facts. It is empty of thought. But this is precisely the purpose. Without the presentation of facts, nothing can be true. Thus, the readers of the news bulletin are deprived of the opportunity to make a critical assessment of the case. But, if the facts are left aside, freedom has come to an end. People, without realizing it, are thus submitting to the Prime Minister's persuasion because they find it impossible to distinguish between what they hear from his mouth and what really is.
The conclusion? As in the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the trial is over. The culprit is on the rope. The Prime Minister no longer needs to deal with the case and the judge. It is the hungry masses who do this. This is evident from the multitude of comments under the Prime Minister's letter, which have "ripped" the figure of the judge in question and the judiciary.
While words without substance hurt the individual and undermine the authority of the public official, the other and more serious problem of the Prime Minister's lightning rod is the intent and the damage it does to state culture. Lightning rods were (and apparently still are) tools of the party and the people. Thus, institutions are out of the game. The Prime Minister or any politician thus bypasses the institutions, which have the authority granted by the Constitution to act, and resolves issues themselves with the people. The police, the inspectorates (which are countless under the Prime Minister's control), the judicial councils (which, thank God, are not under his control), the high inspector, etc. etc., are out of action and cannot exercise their powers. The people are now dealing with the judge and Lasgushi. The one who can pay for the brightest lights emerges triumphant on the scene.
From "Whore" to "pis"and the major judicial reform in the middle
In 2011, the then Prime Minister called the acting Chief Prosecutor a “boulevard whore.” Everyone considered this a serious violation of the independence of the judiciary. In fact, it was often cited as a case for the urgent and necessary launch of a major judicial reform.
And it was done, at least on paper. In 2016, the largest reform in the country's constitutional structure was carried out after the adoption of the 1998 Constitution. The existing institutions of governance of the justice system were merged, functions were distributed to several institutions, which were created from scratch, and all magistrates, including members of the Constitutional Court, underwent a verification process known as vetting. Its consequences are already known. Almost half of the judicial body was removed from office. The new institutions that were created aimed at a plurality of participation from the judiciary, which maintained the majority, and the rest from civil society, academia and the legal profession. The latter, who also have leadership, are elected by the Assembly, i.e. politics.
Fourteen years after being labeled a “whore” and eight years after the reform, the current Prime Minister called a magistrate “dirty.” The reform was done, the alleged “evil” was removed from the system. The judges left, the politicians remained. The language continues to be the same. And here we come to the real problem of the statements of the Prime Ministers. The judiciary has not been the problem, its independence is the problem.
The problems of the language of violence against magistrates and two rescue rules
Many say that the Prime Minister's letters are criticisms of judges. The same thing was said before the reform. In fact, such and similar words have nothing to do with criticism. Criticism means first analyzing someone's work and giving a reasoned opinion to show the shortcomings of the work in order to improve them. For this, you will have to mention the facts. We said above that the letters are clear from the facts. Despite this, they are intimidation and attacks for fear, even in certain cases on the verge of a criminal offense. The word "whore" from fourteen years ago and the very recent word "dirty" are not criticisms but insults and hate speech. And insulting a judge is punishable.
However, we overcome this part, even though it is very serious. Even the cursing of names or surnames, often with bullying language, strikes at the independence of the judiciary. Although it is not a direct threat, cursing in the media in comments, in public, in place and out of place, creates a deterrent effect on them. The Prime Minister knows this. He knows that after the cursing he makes, they themselves or their colleagues, to give a decision, will think twice, regardless of the law. Otherwise? They may have the fate of their friends, ending up in the Prime Minister's mouth and being re-chewed by those who follow him like hungry crowds.
Just like the effects of the lightning bolts, the fish of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, which forced people to self-criticize, and then change their attitude and behavior, even among magistrates, this will at least bring about a rethinking of decision-making. And this, unfortunately, not because of the law. Even among the bravest, and for those who lack the courage and are naturally burdened with fear, certainly deformed decision-making. The conclusion is clear! The entire judicial body is put under the power of fear and here independence ends. And here we come to the second problem.
Social peace. Imagine two people in conflict over a piece of land, a house or any item. They would be in constant conflict themselves and if they did not have the will to reconcile, the conflict could be long, tiring and with consequences. We have often heard of murders over a strip of land or a span of a wall. Not long ago, the Albanian state was condemned by the European Court of Human Rights for not having properly investigated an event where an unidentified person, in the middle of Tirana's main boulevard, had attacked a woman with acid. All her suspicions were against her ex-husband, whom she had divorced, but who did not accept the court's decision. The case is still open.
The provision of justice is one of the functions of the state. What people cannot resolve with good will, they turn to the courts. Once the court decides, everyone must respect that decision. This brings social peace. Conflicts are resolved, hostilities end, property creates stability, human relationships as well. The state is not exempt from this legality. It must first implement the decisions of the courts. Labeling judges and their decisions does not serve this purpose. When the state rejects the decisions made by its own officials, imagine the courage of the people and their rejection of judicial decisions. Driven by the idea that they are right and even more so by the words of the Prime Minister that judges contradict the public interest, they do not mind attacking or even killing those with whom they have a conflict. Returning to the doctrine of the thunderbolt, the state is again delegitimized, people violently impose their ideas, and here we come to the third problem.
The delegitimization of officials and consequently the state itself through violence. In 2013, a citizen, who did not agree with the judicial decision given by a judge, emboldened and imbued with the idea that they are corrupt, attacked her with acid in the face . The action was condemned as an attack on the independence of the judiciary. The attack nevertheless took place and a dangerous precedent was created to the detriment of the judiciary. We are no longer talking about the inhibiting effect experienced by magistrates and their independence, but something more.
The labeling of magistrates and the mockery of them (Gjeli, Balliu, Ligoraqi) make them vulnerable. They are no longer authorities and in front of the parties they are no longer judges or honorable judges, but simply become names predisposed to ridicule and, God forbid, possible victims of attacks. Now, it is no longer about their independence, but about delegitimizing their figure before the parties in the process. The authority that the law and the Constitution give them has already been undone by just a few posts with that of modern whistleblowers. We can no longer talk about independence, but about the magistrate as a victim. If the Prime Minister of a country does not respect officials and institutions, why should a simple person without a function do this? This is how the state collapses by undoing the authority of officials and it is no wonder that one day brave people turn to institutions. And here we come to the last problem. The necessity to understand the rules of independence, as a means to escape from whistleblowers.
Unlike politicians who have the freedom to express themselves in public, magistrates do not have that freedom. However, like any freedom, this is also limited. For all the reasons mentioned above, politicians do not have this right, because they enter the territory of another power, namely the judiciary. The rules of separation and balance of powers have “closed” the mouths of magistrates (not councils, anyway). They can only speak through decisions, while the duty of other links in the state is to oppose them. This is the first rule. Meanwhile, contrary to what has been understood, opposition is only in one direction, in the highest court, not through thunderbolts, acid attacks, labels, insults or hacks.
It is incomprehensible how a Prime Minister, who in the multitude of affairs and policies he has to undertake, labels the decisions of magistrates as final acts of his administration. The Constitution has not given him this authority, despite this, there are a multitude of agencies and subordinate institutions that have the duty to do this. They must first read the decisions. Then they must understand them. They must definitely understand them because it seems impossible that as soon as a judicial decision is announced, still unreasoned, that is, without knowing the reasons for that decision-making, to have the courage to declare a magistrate “without a homeland”, another insult that has nothing to do with decision-making. And at the very end of this logical operation, if the administration subordinate to the Prime Minister thinks that those decisions are contrary to the law, they have the duty to appeal them. This is the essence of the first rule.
To complete this cycle, the next rule must be applied. After exhausting all means of appeal, implementation comes. Refusal of implementation is not a solution, it is even punishable. These are the two fundamental principles, otherwise the state does not function as such. Without them, the republic cannot be parliamentary, the separation of powers is abolished, the state can no longer be just, the institutions will be buildings that house officials who are afraid and unwilling to implement the law, brave and courageous people, masters of their own destinies with weapons in hand, and the end result is a society that languishes and rejects the state.
Note: According to records, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, in addition to the direction it gave to the state, is said to have claimed the lives of over 2 million people.
