Reporting with Eddie Rama, Spiropali explained.

Albania's former Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Elisa Spiropali, has reacted after discussions of recent days in the media and public forums, where a possible break in its reports with Prime Minister Edi Rama has been discussed.

In a long response, Spiropal points out that many of the interpretations that are circulate over its name do not stem from the actual knowledge of circumstances, but from what it calls “nevoy to fill gaps with”.

My curiosity is not a lack of response, it's a line set between what needs to be said and what needs to be understood, because at a time when everything wants to be explained, we risk losing the sense of responsibility.”, she writes among other things.

Full response:

There are days in the shows and forums that talk about me, with a certainty that often does not come from recognition, but from the need to fill the gap with versions. The voices add, interpretations multiply, while what is missing is calm to realize that not everything that happens requires an immediate public confession.

My silence is not a lack of response, it's a firm line between what needs to be said and what needs to be understood, because at a time when everything wants to be explained, we risk losing the sense of responsibility.

What is happening is not just a personal matter but a display of a model that is expanding with a silent normality, where arrogance and abuse are no longer presented as deviations but as acceptable social forms.

This model not only imposes decisions but builds a culture where obedience is considered virtue, and adaptation is rewarded more than credit, gradually shifting politics from a space of competition of ideas to a closed structure where it is relevant, not worth it.

In this stream, the victory begins to lose its moral content and is reduced to results, while the trust which legitimises it is invisibly weakened. And when illusion replaces reflection, then even dignity begins to be treated as a negotiable element, dependent on the moment and position, not as a value that lies beyond power.

Here the silence of the debate begins, not as a lack of thought, but as a lack of room for life. Because debate does not disappear, it is crushed, and when crushed, it does not create silence, but an unseen collection of tension. And just where debate is replaced by silent agreement, meritocracy begins to be mentioned as principle, but it no longer functions as a practice, because it requires a justice that does not accept compromises with the ease of power.

In this climate, fear does not need to be proclaimed to exist, it feels, distributed silently, and became part of a new order where people are taught to measure words, not by truth, but by consequences. And when that happens, freedom loses its character as daily exercise and is reduced to a desire mentioned more than practiced. This is perhaps the most refined form of restraint when freedom is not banned but fades.

Meanwhile, Europe remains a permanent reference to discurs, a word used to legitimise any direction.
Europe is not an alternative to quote, but a set of values that requires compliance, and any distance between word and practice makes this reference empty. At this point, politics faces a question that cannot be avoided: are we building a system that produces responsibility or a system that justifies and reproduces itself?

Victory is not taken, it proves it.
It is fitting when people do not follow you out of fear but believe in obedience, and when you leave, respect remains, not just the result.

So I haven't talked about myself, because this is not a story that starts and ends with an individual. It is a mirror of a time that requires more reflection than reaction. And perhaps, at a time when everything requires voice, silence becomes the strongest form of speech, for it is not subject to immediateity, but it gives time to foolish truth.