In an unprecedented and institutionally dangerous clash between the government and the justice system, Prime Minister Edi Rama reacted today with strong rhetoric towards the judiciary, publicly declaring: "The history of the world has never seen you take money from the Treasury yourself."
But behind this populist-sounding publication lies a completely different parliamentary and constitutional reality. In the theory and practice of constitutional law globally, there is no known precedent where the government and the parliamentary majority knowingly leave a legal vacuum after a decision of the Constitutional Court.
Here the main question naturally arises: Why did Edi Rama's majority in the Assembly not approve the new law on magistrates' salaries within the deadline of July 31, no matter how little they were increased? Who and what prevented the executive from respecting and implementing the deadline set by the Constitutional Court?
The absurdity deepens even further when you look at today's procedural moves: the parliamentary committees themselves began reviewing the Socialist Party's legislative initiative, which provides for a ridiculous 0.02% salary increase for justice.
All of these developments inevitably lead to the analytical question: Did Rama do this on purpose?
The strategy seems to be well conceived in terms of public communication: the conscious creation of a legal impasse allows the prime minister to direct all the attention of public opinion to the "high and luxurious salaries" of judges and prosecutors, gaining popular political points and removing from media attention the corruption affairs of his government.
