From the Fier Penitentiary, the Mayor of Tirana, Erion Veliaj, addressed the members of the Socialist Party National Assembly via a personal SMS, forwarding his speech, in which he calls for a debate on the state of the party, the political responsibility of Edi Rama and the activation of the statutory procedure for the motion of no confidence against the leader of the Socialist Party.

In the speech titled "The Socialist Party is bigger than its president", Veliaj takes a critical look at the socialists' way of leading, contrasting the former culture of debate, solidarity and meritocracy with what he describes as centralized and clientelistic decision-making, weakening of collegial bodies and limiting dissent.

"When I joined the Socialist Party 17 years ago, we were the party of hope. Today we have become the party of hiding, shyness, and avoidance."

Veliaj criticizes the method of selecting ministers and candidates for deputies, the real role of the Assembly and the Presidency, as well as the independence of the Parliamentary Group. He argues that the constitutional powers of the Prime Minister do not exclude his political responsibility towards the party that has received the mandate to govern.

The speech also addresses the interventions that Veliaj attributes to the Prime Minister in local government and the actions that he considers part of an attempt to neutralize him politically. Veliaj refers to his dismissal from the Council of Ministers, a decision later annulled by the Constitutional Court. He repeats the allegations that, after his transfer from Durrës to Fier, the Minister of Justice has conveyed threats on behalf of Edi Rama to aggravate his criminal position and detention conditions, in exchange for resigning from his mandate. For these allegations, Veliaj requests verification through a parliamentary investigative commission, with transparency for the public.

In the concluding part, Veliaj attributes the main political responsibility for the current model of leadership of the Socialist Party to Edi Rama and states that the reform of the party cannot be achieved without changing this model and the leader who built it.

He demands that the National Assembly formally examine Rama's political responsibility and that steps be taken to activate the statutory procedure of the no-confidence motion, through open debate and decision-making according to party rules.

Veliaj concludes his speech by emphasizing the importance of institutions and the temporary nature of every leader:

"The true test of a leader is not how long he can hold power, but what institutions he leaves behind, for the country and its people."

Veliaj's full speech:

THE SOCIALIST PARTY IS BIGGER THAN ITS CHAIRMAN Dear friends, Honorable members of the National Assembly, Today I address you in circumstances that I would never have imagined in my political journey. For 21 months now I have been deprived of my freedom. I am physically away from my family, away from my office, away from the streets of Tirana, away from the citizens who have entrusted me with the leadership of the capital and away from the socialists with whom I have shared work, efforts, victories and difficulties for years. But I am not away from my responsibilities. I am not away from my convictions and I am not away from the Socialist Party. Today I do not want to talk to you only about what has happened to me, but also about what I believe is happening to the Socialist Party and our country. Because these 21 months have given me time to think not only about my personal destiny, but also about the responsibilities that we have had and continue to have towards the citizens.

I. MY JOURNEY WITH THE SOCIALISTS

I came to the Socialist Party as a man of protest, of civic voice and of belief that Albania could be modernized and Europeanized. I started my collaboration with Edi Rama at a time when doors were closed to him within the Socialist Party itself. Not even the Lezha Assembly allowed him to enter the Palace of Culture, with the direct contribution of those who still open and close the doors of the mayor today. It was a time when we were united by the conviction that politics could change people's lives, that a progressive party had to create opportunities for those who had not had them and that young people could take responsibility without the need for well-known surnames, privileged connections or support from powerful people. In this party I have learned that trust is not gained through appointments or personal authority, but by working, listening, standing by the people and taking responsibility for what you promise. I had the honor of co-managing a campaign in the Gjirokastra District and after running for office from 2009 to 2013, without a mandate as an MP, but at the forefront of every opposition battle, I won in six campaigns in Tirana. I gained the trust of the citizens for three terms at the head of the largest Albanian municipality. Throughout this journey, I have worked with thousands of socialists who have never asked for anything for themselves, except the opportunity to contribute. I owe them a lot. I humbly acknowledge the socialists who have knocked on doors, who have defended our ideas in neighborhoods and communities, and who have sacrificed their time without asking for reward. I owe it to the young people who believed that the Socialist Party was the place where talent and work could pave the way. I am indebted to my colleagues in the Municipality of Tirana, with whom we have worked to transform the capital into a European metropolis, and I am indebted to the citizens of Tirana, including those who did not vote for me, because I have become a better mayor because of them too.

II. OUR ACHIEVEMENTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Friends and comrades, We have many reasons to talk about the achievements of our government. Today's Albania is not the Albania we took on to govern. Roads, schools, hospitals, infrastructure and services have been built. The economy has changed. Our cities have changed. Albania has taken important steps towards Europe. Year after year, Tirana has been the European Capital of Youth, Sports and Culture. The socialist government, its prime minister, mayors, MPs, the administration and thousands of people who have worked with dedication have contributed to this transformation. I do not intend to deny any of these achievements. But today we must have the political courage to ask ourselves another question: Are achievements enough to justify the way our power is being exercised today? We have built a lot. But have we built just as correctly? We have modernized the administration. But have we made it more honest and more accountable? We have developed the economy. But have we created equal opportunities? We have won many elections. But have we been "fair" and have they made us more credible? These questions do not invalidate our achievements. On the contrary, they are the questions that a responsible political force should ask, precisely because it has governed for a long time and has had the opportunity to change the country.

III. QUO VADIS, PS?

When I joined the Socialist Party 17 years ago, we were the party of hope. Today we have become a party of concealment, shyness, and avoidance. Back then we raised our voices about everything. Today we are silent about many things. We were demanding justice for Gërdec and January 21st. Today we coexist with injustice. There was enthusiasm and optimism at the assemblies and congresses. Today, silence and fear prevail, like in the "Squid Game": who will be "eaten" next? Our challenge used to be how to include all the people who approached us. Today we are concerned about those who leave us. We make alliances with teachers, doctors, and professionals. Today we make alliances with the strongmen of the cities. Quo Vadis, PS? We were a party of solidarity with each other. Today we have knives in our backs. We invest in facts and truth. Today, rumors and intrigue. We spent energy trying to find friends. Today we waste energy trying to discover enemies. We competed on who opened the most schools, not who opened the most dungeons. We were a team. Today, one or two individuals decide. We were all from the Socialist Party. Today we are divided into people of this or that. We were among people, on the streets, in cafes and markets. Today we avoid them because we cannot face their displeasure. We had the European Capital of Youth, Sport and Culture. Today we are faced with images of violence, gas, and fire. We were outraged by the injustice. Today we are content to prevent injustice from befalling us. We used to have fewer mandates, but great support. Today we have more mandates, but less support. We planted trees and built together. Today we cut off each other's branches and plant separately. We were calling for unity. Today we are looking for internal enemies. We had the motto "One for all, all for one". Today "Each for himself, God for all". Where are we going? We were left-wing reformers, determined to leave the Labor Party. Today we bring back anonymous reports and flash reports. We were hunters of ideas, not of each other. We used to look forward to televised debates to defend our ideas. Today we avoid confrontations to avoid being held accountable for our decisions. We used to awaken the imagination. Today we scared him. We saw Generation Z as the future of the state, not as the enemy of power. We were tolerant and cooperative. Today suspicious and vindictive. We make fun of conspiracy theories. Today we produce and trust them ourselves. We used to ignite dreams. Today we produce nightmares. We were Dritëroi's party. Today's "Nesti Angonit". The great Gramoz left us, and the little Dashi of Saliu came to us. Quo Vadis, Socialist Party? Will we continue to change seats on the Titanic heading towards the iceberg, or will we find the courage to change course to avoid it? Dear friends, These are not simply memories of another time, nor nostalgia for the Socialist Party that was. They are what we have lost during the exercise of power and the way our political organization functions today. The most disturbing change is not just in the people who have left or the debates that no longer take place. It's about the way decisions are made and the role that party institutions have left. Are our socialist organizations still places where discussions and decisions are made, or have they become mainly structures that are activated during campaigns? Are socialists who think differently heard? Are people with integrity and authority promoted in their communities, or is a connection to the leader enough? These issues involve us all. Me too. I don't want to speak from the position of a man who has done everything right. I have led a large administration for years, made thousands of decisions, and held responsibilities that have impacted the lives of hundreds of thousands of citizens. I have made mistakes on this journey. There are decisions that I would consider differently today, people I may not have listened to enough, and situations where I could have shown more care and sensitivity. I am ready to account for my political and human responsibilities. But the individual responsibility of each of us cannot be used to avoid examining Edi Rama's responsibility for the political direction of the Socialist Party. Long-term power creates a well-known danger for any political organization. At first, people approach you because they believe in your ideas. Then, when you gain power, people will approach you seeking opportunities, favors, influence, and benefits, and all sorts of "strongmen" who are more willing to serve you. If the organization does not maintain control mechanisms, one day you may discover that the people who always say "yes" to you have become more numerous than those who have the courage to tell you the truth. This is not just a matter of relationships between people. It determines how the government is formed, how representatives are selected, and how institutions function. Government and political responsibility Let's start with how government is formed. Who proposes ministers? On what political and professional criteria are they selected? What representation do they have in the Socialist Party? What debate takes place in its bodies about the composition and political direction of the government? The answer we often hear is that the government is the responsibility of the prime minister. The Constitution recognizes the Prime Minister's authority to propose the appointment and dismissal of ministers. This competence is clear and not in question. But the constitutional power to form the government does not exclude political responsibility towards the party that has received the mandate to govern. Constitutional competence and political responsibility are not the same thing. The Prime Minister exercises the powers recognized by the Constitution. The Socialist Party, on the other hand, has its own bodies, rules, and responsibility to discuss, orient, and evaluate the political direction of the government. Therefore, the question is not whether the prime minister must obtain party authorization for every appointment. The question is whether the Assembly and the Presidency are truly exercising their political responsibility. Do they discuss the direction of government? Do they consider the criteria of political representation? Do they hold you accountable for decisions and results? Or are they called primarily to learn about decisions that have already been made? If the governing bodies do not truly participate in the formation of political will, but are only informed about the president's decision-making, then they do not exercise the function for which they exist. Parliamentary Group and Political Representation The same issue arises for the Socialist Party Parliamentary Group. Who selects candidates for MPs? On what political, professional and representative criteria? How much weight do their contribution to the party, integrity, experience, and the trust they enjoy in their communities have? How much influence do socialist membership and structures have in this process? Does the Parliamentary Group today represent the plurality of political thought within the Socialist Party, or does its composition and direction increasingly depend on the will of an individual? Is this the Parliamentary Group that truly represents the Socialist Party, its history, values, tradition of debate, and the contribution of generations of socialists? Or has it become a group of people gathered to vote on decisions made elsewhere, without discussing, opposing, and exercising the political responsibility that stems from their mandate? The Socialist Party has never been simply a voting machine. It has been a political community of ideas, personalities, and beliefs. A parliamentary group that loses its ability to debate risks losing its ability to represent. MPs are not civil servants appointed by the party leader or the prime minister. They are representatives of the people, elected through a constitutional and electoral process, with a representative mandate and responsibility to citizens. Loyalty to a political program cannot require surrendering freedom of thought and independent judgment. Political discipline is necessary for the functioning of a parliamentary majority. But it cannot be transformed into unconditional personal conviction. When a member of parliament does not dare to object, when a different opinion is treated as disobedience, and when a colleague's public stance becomes a cause for pressure from the political leadership, then the real exercise of the representative mandate is called into question. The MP must exercise his mandate in accordance with the Constitution, conscience and responsibility towards citizens, not under the fear that an independent stance could cost him his political future. When the Parliamentary Group loses the ability to discuss, scrutinize, and hold accountable, it is not only the party's internal democracy that is weakened. The constitutional function of the Assembly as a representative and controlling institution of the executive branch is also weakened. The consequences of this way of leading do not remain only within the party or the Assembly. They also appear in the relationship between central and local government. Local government and institutional autonomy Developments in local government make this discussion even more important. In July 2025, extensive changes were announced in the management of the Vlora Municipality administration, including resignations of leaders and the opening of vacancies.

These resignations were requested by Prime Minister Edi Rama and his political pressure caused some of the leaders to leave, even though they enjoyed legal protection in the exercise of their duties. The same behavior was also displayed in the Municipality of Tirana. During my detention, the daily management of the municipality continued under extraordinary circumstances. I am now convinced that the personnel changes and the way of administration were used, more than for the city, to weaken my political influence and to remove collaborators with whom I have worked for years. The Prime Minister's intervention in the dismissals in the municipality made the administration less functional and removed it from the vision of the directly elected mayor, expanding political influence and clientelistic relationships. But the most serious interference with my mandate was not limited to changes in the administration. In September 2025, the Municipal Council, under direct pressure from Edi Rama, proposed my dismissal. Subsequently, the Council of Ministers, under his leadership, adopted the decision to dismiss me from office. I consider this an attempt to terminate my mandate for political purposes, through the unconstitutional use of state institutions. I challenged this decision in the Constitutional Court.

With decision no. 66, dated November 3, 2025, the Constitutional Court annulled the decision of the Council of Ministers as incompatible with the Constitution. This is a clear legal fact. But it also requires an examination of institutional and political responsibility: why was a procedure undertaken that ended with the constitutional annulment of the dismissal of a directly elected mayor? I have already expressed my conviction, even in Strasbourg, that behind the attempt to dismiss me there was an intention to politically neutralize me. I link this conviction to a series of developments: the opposition protests in front of the municipality, the anonymous reports, the violations of the prosecutor's office and the judicial decisions to continue my detention even after 21 months, their combination with political actions that have attempted to remove me from the exercise of my functions and limit my political relations, feeding the public perception of the political end of an innocent person, as our constitution presumes. These political actions culminated immediately after my public statements and refusal to hand over the citizens' mandate to a man who did not receive it by vote, with what I consider my kidnapping from Durrës to Fier, without making any written act available to me. Then came the meeting with the Minister of Justice, during which, as I have stated, I was threatened in the name of Edi Rama to aggravate my criminal position and worsen the conditions of detention, if I did not resign from the position for which the citizens elected me. What makes this situation even more serious is that, after these threats, they are being proven with concrete actions where I am prevented from receiving medical care: I am not being provided with the necessary examination to assess the condition of my broken leg and, consequently, neither the surgical intervention that may be necessary. This is not a complaint, but a political statement. If the conditions of detention and the right to health care are used to impose a political resignation, then we are dealing with a political inquisition. These are extremely serious allegations, which I have submitted for review and verification to our Parliamentary Group, also requesting the establishment of a parliamentary investigative commission. I have not asked the Socialist Party to replace the judicial bodies. But it cannot avoid the political responsibility to examine the actions that affect the mandate of one of its elected officials and the way in which power is exercised in its name.

Dissent and political solidarity

Are we more democratic today and do we have more solidarity? Internal democracy and solidarity are not simply moral values, but two fundamental sources of strength for a political organization. Democracy gives the party the ability to listen, debate and correct mistakes, while solidarity creates the trust and cohesion necessary to act together. When a different opinion is treated as disobedience and criticism as a threat, the party loses the ability to reflect. A deputy must be free to express his opinion. A member of the Presidency must have the courage to object. A member of the Assembly must have the authority to hold him accountable. A socialist should be evaluated for his contribution and convictions, not for the degree of obedience to the leader. Solidarity is not unconditional protection of individuals, but loyalty to principles and responsibility for each other. A party where everyone is silent to protect themselves gradually loses the ability to protect the common interest. A party without internal democracy loses the ability to correct itself; A party without solidarity loses the strength to stay united. When both are missing, power remains, but the political organization does not.

IV. RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE STATE OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY

All the issues I have raised lead us to an unavoidable question: who is responsible for the way the Socialist Party is run today? Political responsibility cannot be distributed in such a way that, in the end, no one remains responsible. Edi Rama is both Prime Minister and Chairman of the Socialist Party. He has led its main political and organizational processes for years. For this reason, the main political responsibility for the party's leadership model, for the functioning of its bodies and for the accountability mechanisms belongs to him. This does not exclude the responsibility of anyone else. I also have my own responsibility for the decisions I have made, for the mistakes I may have made and for the way I have exercised the functions entrusted to me. I do not seek exemption from this standard. But my responsibility and that of other leaders cannot serve as a reason to avoid examining the responsibility of the party chairman. He has the right to take credit for the achievements of his leadership.

But this right is accompanied by the obligation to account for the consequences of the decisions, for the weakening of internal control and for the way in which political opposition has been treated. In this context, I consider my case to be the culmination of the degradation of political relations within the Socialist Party. In my submissions before the European Court of Human Rights, I have raised the claim that behind the detention and other developments that have removed me from the exercise of my functions, there is also a political purpose to neutralize me. I do not ask that the Assembly take on the role of a judicial forum. But I ask that it examine the institutional significance of a situation in which an elected leader, a member of the highest party bodies, raises such serious allegations of political interference and of attempts to remove him from public life. For me, this also raises a historical question. The Socialist Party was created in a period when Albania sought to break away from the practices of a system where political opposition was treated as hostility and where power was concentrated without democratic control. Have we returned to this political culture that is appearing again in our relations with power and with each other? The history of the Socialist Party is longer than the leadership of any president. It cannot be identified with the political interest of an individual nor with the personal continuity of anyone in power. Therefore, the debate about Edi Rama's responsibility should not be limited to his relationship with me, no matter how difficult it may be.

It should include the way the Presidency functions, the real role of the Assembly, freedom of thought in the Parliamentary Group, the selection of leaders, the relationship with the membership and respect for the autonomy of institutions. Because the consequences of a leadership model do not remain only within the party. When meritocracy is weakened, the administration is weakened. When decision-making is centralized, control is weakened. When critical thinking is not heard, mistakes are not corrected. When institutions are perceived as dependent on personal relationships, citizens' trust in the state is weakened. When the membership does not really participate in decision-making, the connection between the party and society is weakened. For this reason, the search for political responsibility should not be considered an attack on the party but on the disease they have been injected with. No leader can be exempt from accountability because of his historical contribution. No past achievements eliminate the obligation to examine the problems of the present. No personal conflict should prevent a necessary debate on the way the Socialist Party functions. Respecting the history of the Socialist Party does not require silence in the face of its problems. It requires the ability to identify them, examine them, and correct them through its democratic institutions.

V. DO WE STILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE?

I believe that the Socialist Party has the potential to change. It has the people, the history, the experience and the energy to rise again. But, in my opinion, this change cannot be achieved without first changing the leadership model and the leader who built it. Edi Rama has been an important reformer of the Socialist Party. But I believe that today he has become the main obstacle to its reform. We cannot expect that a system centered on the will of an individual will be corrected only by the will of that same individual. We cannot demand internal democracy from a model that has weakened it; meritocracy from a leadership style that has favored personal loyalty; or independent institutions from a practice that has centralized decision-making. The most recent example is “Loyal Presence”. Faced with citizen dissatisfaction and the urgent need for change, the response was once again an initiative drafted by the president, not by the Socialist Party forums, without debate, without voting and without real approval by its bodies. An instrument that assigns the Socialist Party the responsibility to solve a problem for which it is not responsible, because it has not been heard. A problem that is caused by state institutions that are not accountable to citizens. Because the leaders of these institutions have not been selected through a political process that reflects the sensitivity, values ​​and will of socialists, but through clientelistic appointments, outside the decision-making of the party forums and within a system of relationships that serves the preservation of power. So, the party is not asked when decisions are made, but is called upon to bear responsibility when they fail. It does not decide for the people who govern, but must come before the citizens to defend the consequences of their governance. This is the use of the fist and rose of the Socialist Party for interests that have nothing in common with either the fist, as a symbol of our collective strength, or the rose, as a symbol of our socialist values. My answer is no. Without a change in the chairman and the leadership model that he represents, I do not believe that there can be a true reform of the Socialist Party.

VI. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY Political responsibility cannot remain an open-ended discussion and without institutional consequences.

For this reason, in my capacity as a member of the National Assembly and of the Presidency of the Socialist Party, I request that this Assembly formally examine the political responsibility of the party leader, Edi Rama, for the manner of its leadership, the functioning of the collegial bodies and the respect for the principles of internal democracy. I request that the necessary actions be taken to activate the statutory procedure of the motion of no confidence against the leader of the Socialist Party, in accordance with the Statute and the relevant rules of its implementation. I request that the responsible bodies make known the procedure, deadlines and manner of exercising this right, so that the members of the Socialist Party have the opportunity to express themselves according to the Statute.

Trust in the party leader cannot be considered unlimited just because he has led significant electoral victories. It is a relationship of political responsibility, which must be subject to the democratic control mechanisms provided for by the Statute itself. I do not ask that such an issue be resolved with exceptions, pressures or predetermined decisions. I ask that it be examined through the regular statutory procedure, with open debate, with respect for differing opinions and with equal opportunities for all members who have the right to participate. Decision-making on trust in the leader must be the result of a democratic process, not of personal authority to which accountability is demanded. The Socialist Party has institutions, rules and membership. These are precisely the ones who should be trusted with resolving issues related to its leadership. Dear friends, I have had 21 months to think about politics, power, friendship, loyalty and responsibility. I have thought about everything we have built together. For the victories, for the mistakes and for the people who have trusted us. I also thought about a truth that power often makes it difficult for us to accept: no one is irreplaceable. Not me. Not Edi Rama. No one. We are temporary in the duties we hold. But the institutions, values ​​and responsibility towards citizens must remain. I ask that no one give up the right to think, to speak and to judge independently. I remain responsible for my decisions and I will demand that every leader face the same standard of responsibility. A democratic party is not the property of its leader today. It is not even the property of those who aspire to lead it tomorrow.

It belongs to the people who built it, who trusted it and who have the right to hold it accountable. The history of the Socialist Party is longer than the mandate of any president. Its future cannot rest on the inviolability of anyone. If we want Albania's institutions to be stronger than the people who lead them, we must start by applying the same principle within our party. The true test of a leader is not how long he manages to hold power, but what institutions he leaves behind, for the state and its people.

Erion VELIAJ

FIER IEP, 13/11/2026.