Two mutually exclusive terms: Uprising and peaceful

2026-04-27 08:52:00, Opinione Ardi Stefa

Two words cannot coexist in the same sentence without clashing: uprising and peaceful. One carries the explosion, the other the containment. One implies the breaking of order, the other its preservation. However, in public discourse, especially in politics, these two terms are often used together, not to clarify reality, but to obscure it.

Insurrection, at its core, is an act of subversion. It arises when an order is considered unjust and seeks to be overthrown, not negotiated. Insurrection is a collective energy that does not ask for permission, but imposes change. Historically, insurrections have been associated with violence, not necessarily as a goal, but as an inevitable consequence of a clash with power. Insurrection is an open refusal.

On the other hand, peaceful presupposes restraint. It is a choice not to cross the line of violence, to demand change through moral pressure, not through physical force. Peaceful protest is an appeal, not an ultimatum. It seeks to persuade, not to coerce.

The problem arises when these two concepts are artificially conflated: “Peaceful uprising.” At first glance, it sounds like a modern formula, an attempt to soften radicalism without losing its energy. But in essence, it is a contradiction. Because the moment a movement remains completely peaceful, it has chosen not to be an uprising, but a protest. And the moment it becomes a real uprising, it has crossed the line of peace.

The use of this combination is often strategic. Politicians use it to mobilize followers with strong rhetoric (“insurrection”), while maintaining a public and legal alibi (“peaceful”). It is a way to ignite emotions without taking responsibility for the consequences. A call that calls for fire, but claims to warm without burning.

This phrase placed in Berisha's discourse is a deliberate contradiction, because when Berisha speaks of "peaceful uprisings", he does not describe a reality but constructs a narrative.

Combining these two terms is not simply a linguistic paradox, but a political strategy. Berisha seeks to ignite the emotion of an uprising, the feeling of revolt, of subversion, without taking on the real cost that an uprising brings. So he immediately adds a "peaceful" one, as a kind of public and legal insurance, especially before the internationals. A two-way message: anger below, alibi above.

This rhetoric has a double and dangerous effect. On the one hand, it mobilizes supporters with language that promises radical change. And when language radicalizes faster than action, a dangerous gap is created between expectations and reality. On the other hand, it keeps them tied to an unclear line of action. So it calls for overthrow, but asks them to behave as if in a symbolic protest. The result? Collective frustration and wasted energy in a routine of protests that produce nothing new.

In essence, Berisha's "peaceful uprising" is neither an uprising nor peace. It is a rhetorical construct that serves a single purpose: to keep political tension alive without bringing it to a decisive point. A state of suspense, where everything seems on the verge of explosion, but nothing explodes.

In fragile democratic societies, this play on words is dangerous. It creates false expectations. People are called to “uprising,” but are asked to behave as if they were in a symbolic march. Or, conversely, they are mobilized for peaceful protests that easily slide into tension, because the language that called them was never peaceful. A leadership that cannot “choose” between protest and uprising has in fact chosen nothing, except to prolong an illusion indefinitely.

However, it is a matter of conceptual honesty. A society should know what it is doing. Protesting or insurrection? These are not two forms of the same thing, but two different paths, with different consequences. Mixing them up is not political acumen; it is manipulation.

And manipulation, unlike insurgency and peace, coexists very well with both./ CNA