A public stance using harsh language against violence in protests presents the state as a party that should not retreat in the face of attacks on institutions and public property. But beyond the call for order and the rule of law, the text also carries a political reading that seeks to place protest, destabilization and opposition pressure in the streets on the same plane.
The right to protest, but not above the law
At the core of the argument is the claim that protest is a constitutional right, but not a parallel power over the state. The emphasis is placed on Article 47 of the Constitution, which guarantees peaceful and unarmed assemblies, while denying any legitimacy to coercion by force or to replacing institutions with the pressure of the crowd.
The political message is clear: governments are changed through elections and constitutional mechanisms, not through attacks on institutions, the burning of public property or the blocking of city life. This is a formulation aimed at separating peaceful protest from violent acts, even though it is used in a clearly polarizing context.
Violence is described as a criminal matter, not a political act
The text says that throwing stones at police, attacks on institutions, arson and the destruction of property cannot be considered political acts. According to this position, these are actions that should be investigated and receive an individual legal response, regardless of political beliefs.
It also calls for there to be no political tolerance for violations of the law and no selective enforcement. This line of argument strengthens the public-order narrative, but at the same time places a direct burden on law-enforcement bodies to prove the violations and concrete responsibilities, rather than treating protesters as a single guilty mass.
The state also has limits in its response
The text does not defend a free hand for the police. On the contrary, it acknowledges that the authority of the state has limits and that police must act on the basis of the law, with proportionality and without harming peaceful protesters.
This is an important element in any debate on public assemblies: the state demands enforcement of the law, but cannot use this as a justification for excessive force. The real dimensions of proportionality, however, always remain to be verified on the ground and not only in political statements.
Political confrontation and the role of the media
Part of the argument links violence in the streets to the crisis of political competition in Albania, suggesting that the loss of electoral support is being compensated for with pressure in the streets. This is a political thesis, not a fact proven in itself, but it is used to support the idea that destabilization is turning into an instrument of confrontation.
Along the same lines, the media is also attacked, accused of having manipulated, spread disinformation and normalized violence as a political spectacle. The claim raises legitimate questions about reporting standards, but the overall tone of the text is more polemical than analytical.
In the end, the repeated message is that the state should not negotiate the enforcement of the law with anyone and that retreating in the face of violence produces arbitrary force, not democracy.
The real debate remains elsewhere: how to simultaneously protect the right to protest, public order and the boundary that separates a lawful response from the political use of order. It is precisely there that the seriousness of institutions is measured, not only in their rhetoric.