The arrest of the leader of the Opposition as a 'Rama-SPAK pact'

Alfred Lela

SPAK did not do what the law stipulated the first time. Because, in the interpretation that this body makes of the Constitution, the removal of the passport and the obligation to appear before the court for the MP mandated by the people, Sali Berisha, is not a restriction of freedom. Thus, the special prosecutors did not ask the Assembly for permission to impose restrictions on the MP, former President, and former Prime Minister. A consent they would have received, for sure, knowing that the majority in the Assembly belonged to Edi Rama's Socialist Party.

This interpretation did not convince Berisha, but neither did a good part of opinion makers in Albania. The head of the opposition continued the battle as if nothing had happened, not appearing before the judicial police but "appearing" before the Constitution. 

This exposed SPAK as an instance that is being ignored, and its prosecutors reacted by changing the measure of arrest from 'mandatory appearance' to 'house arrest.' 

What has changed that the security measure is changing, would be the first logical question? Are there signs that Berisha can escape? Is there new evidence that forces the measure to get tougher?

It's neither of those. SPAK is doing damage control or restoring control over the situation and the 'disobedient' subject, Berisha.

So, it is atoning for violating the Constitution that it made itself with another mistake, unnecessary tightening of the security measure.

The only danger that could lead to this tightening is the possibility of Mr. Berisha's escape. So, from today until Thursday, when the Parliament decides, SPAK must guard the subject. Of course, like Berisha's biggest enemies, the prosecutors know that someone who didn't run away once during the siege won't run away even now when the blockade, even though it seems harsh, is a cardboard wall.

Why then?

SPAK is clearly being instructed or acting under extra-institutional, meaning political, directives. Analysis of the facts leads to only one conclusion. A pact between Rama and SPAK allows the latter to prove itself as a worthy representative of the new justice and the American investment in this reform. At the heart of this pact is a red line that SPAK cannot cross. Around the line, Altin Dumani and his team can do whatever they want but go there and back. With both feet on this line, Edi Rama, Erion Veliaj, and 2-to three other people, probably a family member, should not be touched. In return, Rama allows Dumani, with no fuss, to investigate everyone else in the government or administration, asking him for something in return: the prosecution of Sali Berisha. Without the latter, Rama, regardless of power, would have difficulty surviving pressure from his party. The socialists could not understand nor forgive how their people fell, and nothing touched Berisha when Rama himself kept them in the hope of his punishment. At least for January 21, the victims of which he led to the ambush, among others, enacted by one of his current mayors.  

A party leader who allows free kicking of his own, even handing it over to SPAK warning of the investigation and dismissing them from office, can be strong but vulnerable. 

Knowing that neither SPAK nor the Americans will speak, Rama builds a narrative that helps him electorally. Have you heard him say up and down that he and SP did the justice reform, not the Anglo-Americans?

The whole scheme is also facilitated by a weak player, who, just in case, waits for his second chance: Lulzim Basha. He remains in the shadows after the arrest of Sali Berisha. Sali Berisha is his obstacle to being prime minister for those few around Basha.

This is the scheme, and through it, SPAK operates. In any situation, this could be a scheme for the state driven by a raison d'etat if it were not at its core the consequence of leaving the country without opposition or appointing the opposition.

If SPAK were composed of men and women who see their institution as a fragment of the rule of law, which is an almost eternal notion, they would also make this calculation. The decision to participate in the destruction of the opposition, to possibly build the 'new justice,' and 'end impunity' is a Jacobin dream.

And, at least readers and history students know what happens at the end of Jacobean dreams: those who run the guillotine end up one day on its cold blade, not as heroes, but as excesses.