Clashes in Parliament have prompted another critical reaction toward the political class. Professor Artan Fuga responded in strong terms to what happened in the parliamentary session, calling into question not only the behavior of the deputies, but also their failure to offer the solutions the public expects.
Direct criticism of the session
In a reaction on social media, Fuga attacked the way today’s session in Parliament unfolded, saying that deputies engaged in staged clashes instead of providing answers to the political situation.
He portrayed their behavior as an insincere performance, far from citizens’ expectations and far from the role Parliament should play at a moment of political tension.
Fuga’s message: they missed an opportunity
According to the reaction he published, the deputies once again missed the chance to propose concrete ways out. His criticism does not stop at their conduct in the chamber, but extends to the lack of substance and the inability to turn political debate into solutions.
Fuga stressed that, faced with a society expecting responsibility, today’s parliamentary performance produced neither clarity nor a political offer.
Accusation of insincerity and crisis of trust
In his message, Fuga described the deputies as insincere and disappointing, while warning that they themselves would face the consequences of their actions or inaction.
He also raised the issue of public trust, underlining that the relationship between citizens and their representatives has been severely damaged. According to him, society’s trust in the deputies is almost zero.
What he said publicly
In his Facebook reaction, Fuga wrote: “Even today the deputies did what they should not have done, they pretended to fight with fists, instead of at least proposing, if not giving, the political solution that society expects.”
He added: “They should not complain afterward when they face the consequences of their actions or inaction. Society’s trust in them is almost zero!”
Fuga’s reaction comes in a climate in which parliamentary tension is increasingly accompanied less by real debate and more by scenes for political consumption.
This, precisely, is the core of his criticism: a lot of noise in the chamber, but no serious answer for a public waiting for accountability and solutions.