The ridiculous coherence of the opposition

2026-06-16 18:11:00, Opinione Ardi Stefa

The opposition, which has purchased a visa for "health reasons", today called on the majority MPs to join it and oust Edi Rama with a no-confidence motion. The protesters are even promised that these MPs will be the saviors of democracy.

But isn't it absurd?

Until yesterday we were hearing another story. Albania, according to the opposition, was a regime. The majority MPs were the product of votes from crime, drugs and manipulation. The parliament was illegitimate. The institutions were captured. Everything was rotten to the core.

Today, suddenly, the same MPs who until yesterday were considered part of the criminal mechanism of power are called upon to save democracy. The same people who did not represent the will of the citizens now have the legitimacy to overthrow the government through constitutional procedures.

Now, when it needs a political solution, it returns to the same Parliament that declared it illegal. If the institution is captured, then it cannot be the solution at the same time. If it is the solution, then it was never as illegal as it was claimed.

So, which of these two stories should citizens believe?

If Albania is a dictatorial regime, how can the regime be overthrown through its institutions? If the majority MPs are the product of crime, why is their cooperation required? If the Parliament is illegitimate, why is salvation sought from that Parliament?

The issue is not a change in strategy. Politics needs flexibility. The problem is a lack of coherence. When rhetoric changes according to the current situation, citizens have the right to suspect that reality is not changing, but only political interest.

Equally paradoxical is the relationship with the protesters. Yesterday, protesters who sought new alternatives were declared manipulated. Today, because they can be useful, they have suddenly become patriots. Yesterday, the majority MPs were a symbol of the deformation of democracy. Today, they are the votes needed to save it.

There is also a moral problem. If the majority MPs were to switch to the opposition tomorrow, what would change in their integrity? Would they automatically be cleared of charges of criminal links, electoral manipulation or corruption? If so, then it turns out that the problem has never been democratic standards, but simply the political positioning of individuals.

This creates the belief that the only criterion is no longer truth, but political expediency of the moment. And when expediency becomes the criterion, rhetoric loses credibility and politics falls into collective oblivion.

And it's not political strategy. It's a ridiculous incoherence that insults the intelligence of anyone with a memory longer than a press conference./ CNA