Rama's silence tells me something

Alfred Lela

When I asked an American resident in Albania what he thought about Ahmetaj's interview, he answered me with a counter question: What would have happened in America if, for example, Nancy Pelosi or Kamala Harris had fled, let's say in Singapore, and from there issue strong accusations against President Biden?

At least an impeachment against Biden and, least of all, a reaction from the President, and many others in the departments of the US government.

But we are not in America and nothing like that has happened.

Public communication holds as axiomatic the thesis that, in cases of crises or accusations, if you do not react, even if you are not guilty, you are taking on the blame. In these conditions, is Rama guilty, or by choosing not to react, because he does not know public communication!?, is he taking on a guilt that he does not have?

To be practical until the end, the fault is waxy. Guilt for the act you committed in violation of the rules or laws, and guilt in which you are a second or third party actor, i.e. accomplice, accessory, etc. There is also a third type of guilt, which is known as guilty by association or, in English, guilt by association.

So, Rama is not guilty, but simply the association with Arbe Ahmatej makes him guilty.

If there are those who, to exonerate Rama, choose this third track, they will be contradicted by logic.

First, because the big actor in this partnership is not Ahmetaj, but Rama. This is the second boss of the first and prime minister of the country. So, in any case, it is Rama who can be accused of both guilt and complicity. Guilt takes meaning from power or powerlessness. In the duo of our exercise, Rama-Ahmetaj, it is the prime minister who has the power and exercises the power, not the other way around.

Secondly, even in the case when Ahmetaj may have eaten pears behind his back, Rama has the public responsibility to separate himself from his deputy. It means dismissing him and at the same time announcing the reason for the dismissal. The fact that he didn't do it gave Mr. Ahmetaj to complete the public narrative with his thesis that he was removed to make him a scapegoat (and two hands for one head). Rama's attempt to separate his government from Ahmetaj, leaving SPAK to single him out as the rotten apple in the pile as the apple of the government, would have worked if his former deputy had bowed his head before the sentence. Rama had not calculated this. Otherwise, he would find him guilty from the start, dismissing him for corruption and throwing him into the clutches of SPAK. The scheme for Ahmetaj to become a sacrifice and agree to go to his mother's house for the party had worked with Sajmir Tahiri, Alqi Bllako, or Taulant Tusha.  

These are the reasons why Rama is silent. First, because he has used up the moves behind the scenes and has nothing left for the stage. If he had chosen the first track, dismissing him for corruption, he would have spoken with the act and won the right to remain silent.

But there is also a second reason. Rama is forced to remain silent because Ahmetaj forced him. If Rama speaks, it gives Ahmetaj the right to speak even more. If Rama speaks, he is recording free material for the intelligent services mentioned by Ahmetaj.

So, the prime minister and his people are interested in keeping quiet. At least until Sunday when the SP convenes the Assembly and someone, no one more than Rama, has to say something. Let it be a daily threat for those who break the unity, who go to the motherland, the infidels!

There are several days of preparation to break the silence of the noise caused by the interview of the former deputy prime minister. If not speak with words, at least with actions. For example, finding a Turk's head, which takes the place of the head, now Swiss, now neutral, now the clock that does not make mistakes in the last count, of Arben Ahmetaj.