A different account: Who really is Gramoz Ruchi?

Add to that and, therefore, that there is no attraction in his portrait, which is still a weighty psychological effect on perception of an individual. Even the slight resemblance to Jean Paul Belmondo does not make it easier to be cool, which should actually be the opposite according to the criteria Peppi puts on “Duel tacit”, when he takes a picture he sees a regimer in the military garment there: “the handsome male is the code, the commissioners choose, so they take people's minds to”

While Gramoz Ruchi, a former commander without uniform, is nothing like that and not at all possible to distract people from the view of “And now, this man will be no. Three of the Albanian state. Ruci will lead parliamentary life, a return to state policy after 26 years within party walls, without any office in the state. For those who hate it, that's really sad. But is their hatred logical? And from what does it begin as it is shaped and remains undisputed? If it's his communist past as former regime officer, it does not penalise him at all.

A good part of Albanian politics still has enough ssh in its ranks. One of them is the self-democrat Berisha, as a former secretary to the organisation, which is easily thanks to ambitious nature, if Communism had lasted for a few years, it would not have been surprising if it had climbed to the Political Bureau.

If it is about the April 2nd event, neither politically nor legally has his individual guilt been proven. Enough was Berisha himself, during all these years of political protagonism cyt charges against opponents, for Ruchin has offered only that of the “rarantis in Greece in HINA97 dressed as a woman”, something closer to a fictional rather than real lemonade. So neither has Berisha been able to charge him on April 2nd, the one who forgives on such occasions. And we come to his parliamentary activity in 26 years. Have you ever heard Ruchi's mouth utter any reproach, insults, disparaging words about anyone? Has he, his parliamentary protagonisation, ever been cause for confrontation, incidents, strife? No parliament speaker until today has felt obliged to call attention, to say “puto”, “ulu” or “shut down the mic”.

Despite all of this, Gramoz Ruci remains a spared in speech, and, when he appears on the platform to express a political attitude, his speech is a model of logical instruction, argumentative clarity and being clear from the point of visual emotional burdens. It is sufficient that the end of his parliamentary remarks does not happen to be accompanied by noisy reactions from political opponents. There may be options, however, from an individual voice, but it does not happen that the opponent reacts to the harvest and the harshness of what he disagrees with. And this, without overindulgence, makes Gramoz Ruchin one of the most model stones of Albanian parliamentary life, while at a first glance, for many, it conveys evil in general perception.

That makes it a psychosocial case to study, no more Gramoz than access to judgment and taste to it. Because it's a fatheric case that doesn't match perception with real data. And to think that this model of parliamentary life comes from communism, with the stamp of being the hated “” because of its communist horse. His elite in the other political direction may be taken by the late Peter Arbnor. Even this weird “”. Although a living victim of communism, in political protagonism, especially as head of the Parliament, offered a sanitical sense of behavior with the opponent, even though completely justified to do otherwise. The difference is that in Arbnor, his features were still more <x4human>” than Ruci's. That means, the latter can also be hated, aesthetically, but at least not politically. (Teshesh. com)