
Today's protest in front of the Parliament presented the police with a real challenge. On the one hand, they had to guarantee the constitutional right of citizens to protest, and on the other hand, ensure the normal functioning of the Parliament and the free movement of MPs. These two obligations are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, a professional police force is measured precisely by the ability to guarantee both.
What we saw today raises serious questions about this very ability.
It is worth remembering that for 32 consecutive days, the protest has remained largely peaceful, even when tens of thousands of citizens have descended on the square. And this is attributed to the organizers, who have repeatedly intervened to calm the situation and avoid provocations.
Even today, live television broadcasts showed that for more than an hour the situation was under control. The organizers kept the protesters calm and, beyond shouting or a few eggs thrown at the water cannon, there were no physical clashes.
Everything changed when protesters pelted the Speaker of the Assembly's vehicle with eggs, forcing him to return to the Assembly courtyard.
After this moment, the police completely changed tactics. The scene was filled with special forces, the massive pushback of the protesters began, while tear gas and water cannons became the main means of intervention.
The paradox is that up until that moment, there were only a few dozen protesters.
Apparently the Albanian police only operate at two speeds: either they withdraw and become spectators (4-week protests) tolerating almost everything, or they immediately switch to using heavy force. (Opposition protests)
What is missing is what in Western democracies is the essence of crowd management: communication, negotiation, isolation of problematic individuals, and the gradual and proportionate use of force.
The harsh intervention produced exactly what was to be avoided. Protesters scattered, returned throwing rocks and bottles, vehicles were damaged, police and citizens were injured, and escorts to police stations were accompanied by excessive use of force.
The irony is that, after all this chaos, the Speaker of the Assembly's car emerged a little later without any incident.
Was escalation inevitable, or was it the very mode of intervention that produced it?
A police officer in 2026 is not measured by the amount of tear gas he uses, but by the number of incidents he manages to prevent. Success is not in forcibly dispersing the crowd, but in avoiding the scenario where a protest with a few dozen people turns into a clash where everyone loses.
It is equally important that the police are not used as an instrument of political debate. It is not helped when MPs and ministers start a race on social media to spread statements like “we condemn violence against the police”, while remaining silent about how the situation was managed. The police are protected by being better trained, by staying away from political propaganda and by being allowed to enforce the law with professionalism and proportionality, not by being used as a political shield.
A police officer who enforces the law should not have to choose between protest and public order. His job is to protect both. When a gathering of several dozen protesters ends with tear gas, special forces, and violence from both sides, the problem should not be sought only in the protest, but also in the way it was managed.