Rama asked him not to post criticism on social networks, Spiropali: Ban me

2026-04-28 13:50:35Politikë SHKRUAR NGA REDAKSIA VOX

Rama asked him not to post criticism on social networks, Spiropali: Ban me

Elisa Spiropali

SP MP Elisa Spriopali has responded to Prime Minister Edi Rama with another reaction on social media. At yesterday's meeting, Rama warned her of expulsion from the SP group if she made another critical online status. Rama did not even let Spiropali reply.

Exclude me
Internal debates, no matter how strong, should not turn into a public punitive spectacle.
If this happens, the problem is no longer disagreement, it is the fear of disagreement.
This stubborn fact, this obvious observation, more than the warning itself, forces me to speak.
When a public warning becomes an instrument of intimidation, silence is no longer prudence, it is surrender.
If my stance on the way the party, the government, the state is functioning is considered a reason for exclusion, then I am saying it calmly and clearly: Exclude me.
Not as a personal challenge. Not as a political drama. Not as a media show. But as proof that the problem is not with the word that raises concern, but with the system that does not tolerate concern.
I have not attacked the Socialist Party. I have criticized the model that in some aspects is also harming the Socialist Party.
I have spoken about the separation of the party from the state. About the risk of politics being replaced by administration. About a logic of control. Where bureaucratic structure and administrative power risk taking the place of political representation.
If these are considered reasons for exclusion, then the question is not why I speak. The question is why these things are not allowed to be said.
Power is not weakened by criticism. Power is weakened when it loses the ability to self-correct.
If in a political force that was born as a project of national emancipation, criticism is treated as a deviation, then the problem is deeper than any debate. It is a crisis of political culture.
If you demand that institutions not be controlled, personalized, instrumentalized, it is a sin, then expel me.
If you demand competition and merit, inside and outside the party, it is a sin, expel me.
If you demand that socialists not be replaced by a model of "directorocracy", where political contribution fades in the face of administrative control, it is a lack of discipline, expel me.
If you think that power should recognize self-limitation, and should not be equated with the structures that surround it, it is an unacceptable heresy, expel me.
I am not defending a position. Much less an armchair. The presidency and the ministry were not left to me by my grandfather or grandmother. I am defending a principle.
In politics, dissent is not a breach of loyalty.
Dissent is the highest form of loyalty.
When refusing to become part of an automatism of votes in Parliament is interpreted as leaving the group, then the problem is not discipline, but the idea that obedience is demanded blindly, without justification, without considering the consequences.
When obedience is refused as a ritual, unity is not being defended, but submission is being demanded.
When conscience is treated as a disciplinary violation simply because it does not agree with the automation of actions, then the problem is not dissent, but the model that confuses obedience with submission, attempting to normalize even abuse. If I am wrong about this too, expel me.
But at least make it clear that the expulsion is not happening because someone has betrayed the party. It is happening because someone has refused to remain silent about the way the government is acting in its name.
And this is not a personal issue. It is a matter of how politics is understood. What happens to a party when even a political act of not voting is seen as hostility? What happens to a state when opposition is treated as a threat? What happens to a society when obedience is demanded as submission?
These are not questions about my fate, which I make on my own without anyone's help. They are questions about how it is governed.
The threat of expulsion from the group worries me less than the idea that the idea that a political grouping should function through fear can be normalized.
A political formation where no one opposes is not strong. It is silent and must be guarded against the evil.
Political silence has always been a warning of evil.
Not infrequently, it is not the real strength of the opponent that scares.
It is the echo that is given to fear that scares.
Many control structures are maintained not so much by their strength, but by the false perception that others have of their strength, by mechanisms that survive on the fear they produce. If we do not agree on even that, expel me.
If the right to speak, even to shout, is not respected, when my political family begins to be afraid of the word, there is no dilemma, the solution is 1, expel me.