The political clash over the protests has intensified further, after Sali Berisha publicly rejected the labeling of protesters as part of “Antifa,” a thesis that, according to Prime Minister Edi Rama’s version, is being used to interpret the events of recent days. From the meeting of the Democratic Party’s leadership, Berisha presented this as an attempt to delegitimize the protest and exert pressure on participants.
Berisha: The protest has no connection to “Antifa”
At the meeting of the Democratic Party’s leadership, its chairman Sali Berisha declared that there is “not a single Antifa element” in the protests of recent days, directly opposing Edi Rama’s position.
Berisha accused the prime minister of trying to build a political shield against public revolt by presenting the protest with labels that, according to him, have no connection to the real makeup of the protesters.
Accusations of political fear and threats against protesters
According to Berisha, Rama’s reaction stems from fear that his “day of reckoning” is approaching. In his statement, the PD leader said the prime minister has lost his composure and is shifting from calls for dialogue to threatening messages toward those who take part in the protest.
He claimed that intimidating language is being used against protesters, including warnings about “blacklists” and passport blockages, presenting this as a sign of an authoritarian approach toward public dissent.
The clash extends to banks and institutional pressure
In his remarks, Berisha also mentioned banks, suggesting that those in power believe they can turn financial power against the protest. He said the banking sector does not operate on political orders, but on national and international laws.
This part of the statement shifts the debate beyond the usual party rhetoric, raising questions about how the government communicates with institutions and how it seeks to project control at moments of political tension.
Harsh rhetoric in a heated political climate
Berisha used strong language against Rama, accusing him of hypocrisy and of trying to distort the essence of the protest. He also drew attention to the social cost of emigration, speaking of young people raised away from one parent, which he said is the product of government policies.
His statement comes at a time when the government and the opposition are clashing not only over the protest itself, but also over the narrative that should dominate public opinion: civic revolt or a politically labeled threat.
For now, the clash remains at the level of strong political statements, while the interpretation of the protest is being used as another front between the government and the opposition.
What stands out is each side’s attempt to impose its own label on the protesters, in a climate where official language and the opposition’s response are becoming part of the political battle itself.