A statement signed by more than 20 organizations has called on political actors and state institutions to lower the temperature of public rhetoric and create space for dialogue, at a moment of tension surrounding the protest. Prime Minister Edi Rama’s response came with a dual message: an invitation to dialogue “without conditions,” but also an attack on what he described as violence and a “pseudo-student masquerade.”
The organizations’ appeal: less incitement, more space for dialogue
In their statement, the organizations called on political representatives and state leaders to avoid inflammatory rhetoric and respect the right to peaceful protest.
At its core, their request focuses on reducing public tension, protecting the life and dignity of every person, and avoiding any situation that could put citizens at risk.
Rama’s response: yes to dialogue, but with implied political conditions
In the response published on social media, Rama wrote that the government is ready for dialogue and used the formula: “Come, DIALOGUE. Wherever you want. Whenever you want. Without conditions.”
However, alongside this invitation, he asked others to “set the example of dialogue first” and clearly distance themselves from violence, stones, the setting of institutions on fire, and the misuse of minors.
The official version links the protest to violence
The prime minister claims that the right to peaceful protest is not endangered by the police, but by those who, according to him, lead the protest through violence. In the same response, he called the movement a “pseudo-student masquerade,” giving the event an openly political reading.
This wording places the invitation to dialogue in a framework that is not neutral: on the one hand, talks are offered; on the other, the protesters are described with strong labels that the organizations themselves had asked political and institutional actors to avoid.
The public message remains contradictory
On the one hand, there is a clear request from civil society for calmer language and guarantees for peaceful protest. On the other, the response from the head of government keeps two lines together: the offer of dialogue and the harsh narrative toward the protest.
At this point, it remains unclear whether the climate for real dialogue can be built with rhetoric that continues to treat opponents through political accusations, even while readiness for talks without conditions is publicly declared.
The organizations’ statement placed at the center of the debate the responsibility of politics and institutions not to push the confrontation to a higher level. Rama’s response acknowledged, in form, the need for dialogue, but not without accompanying it with language that reopens the same tension that is being called to ease.