INSURRECTION/ SP MPs rebel, drag Gjati to vote on territorial division!

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

Why Vetting was and remains violence against state formation

2026-08-25 15:39:40Pikëpamje SHKRUAR NGA YLLI MANJANI

Why Vetting was and remains violence against state formation

Another blow to the Vetting process comes from Strasbourg, in the case of Papandile v. Albania. The case itself is illustrative of how Vetting, at the height of its arrogance, went beyond any limits of competence and even interfered with the rights of someone who was not part of the justice system, but only intended to enter it.

There was a moment when the Vetting institutions took over everything. They no longer cared who they were facing. They punished anyone who came before them, without worrying at all whether or not they had the legal authority to do so. It was a mechanism that had lost its measure, its boundaries, and its sense of the state.

Strasbourg, which is apparently no longer under the political influence of the European Commission, which presented itself as the “owner” of the justice reform, is issuing increasingly clear decisions against the way in which Vetting was implemented. This does not necessarily mean that the European Court is rejecting the reform in its entirety. In essence, Strasbourg is saying something more serious: it is highlighting that the Albanian state has violated fundamental rights in its name.

This is the crux of the problem.

The vetting was a humiliating process for the Albanian state. In the name of fighting corruption in political power, the state took an unprecedented act against itself. It brought to the streets judges and prosecutors who, until the day before, had issued decisions on behalf of the Republic of Albania, had sentenced people to life imprisonment, and represented the authority of the law.

What a paradox!

One day the state gives you the platoon and the authority to judge in its name. The next day, that same state throws you out on the street based on assumptions, public perceptions, and reasoning methods that resembled the political trials of communism more than the standards of a state governed by the rule of law.

Shame is too little to define what happened.

It was a crime against statehood.

Because the state massively murdered its own employees.

No state has a chance of survival when it decides to massively destroy its administration and institutional body. A state that does this does not strengthen itself, but commits suicide. It does not build institutions, but creates fear. It does not produce justice, but produces the conviction that no one is protected from arbitrariness.

Everything would be done, and was done, to fight corruption. But corruption is not fought by destroying the state. Even less so when the narrative of the “great war” is used to legitimize a political power that itself has been constantly accused of being the epicenter of corruption. Of course, corruption was not fought, but rather sophisticated. The price simply increased…

The worst thing was that the state killed its own employee. So, it killed itself.

Albania is perhaps the most extreme case in Europe. Serbia, having tried this model, withdrew it after only nine months. Romania and Croatia implemented it in a much more limited way and without self-destructive consequences for the system. Kosovo and North Macedonia refused to build their system on this instrument.

We don't.

We carried it to the end, with a zeal that produced counterproductive consequences.

Yes, the carrot of negotiations with the European Union was dangled before us. But in the meantime, the daily stick of the lack of a normal justice system fell on the backs of the citizens and the state itself.

Today, a question arises that is not at all anti-European, but deeply state-forming: what value is membership in the European Union if we fail to have judges who judge on evidence and not on public perceptions? What value is there if officials are afraid to enforce the law because a firm could cost them their job or their freedom?

Vetting remains the most bitter experience in the institutional memory of this state.

And the pride with which it was propagated is, in fact, a reason for deep reflection. Because it shows that we still have a serious problem with the concept of the state. We continue to identify the state with politicians. When we get angry with them and do not know how to punish them through voting, we blame the state, the civil servant, the judge, the prosecutor, the administration.

This was not reform. This was, and still is, self-destructive behavior.

Therefore, what was done must, in one way or another, be corrected. Not to restore impunity. Not to protect the corrupt. But to rehabilitate injustice where it has been proven, to restore dignity to those who were struck without evidence and without justice, and to restore to the state the human capital that it itself destroyed.

Even forgiveness is a state-forming institution.

And not everything will come from Strasbourg. Strasbourg can find the violation. But the decisions to repair the state must be made here.

With manliness.

With courage.

And, above all, with a true concept of state formation.


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×