Dashnor Kaloçi
Part twenty
Memorie.al publishes some documents issued by the Central State Archive (fund of the former Central Committee of the ALP), where there is a voluminous file with archival materials which bear the logo ‘Top secret’, which belong to the period of years 1981-1982, with reports, reports, evidence, information, minutes of the meetings of the Politburo and the secretariat of the Central Committee of the ALP, etc., starting from what was held to review and analyze the self-criticism of the former Prime Minister Mehmet Shehu in December 1981, because he had allowed the engagement of his son, Skënder, “with a girl who had some political fugitives in her family circle”, the marathon meeting of the Politburo on the afternoon of December 17 his year that continued until the late hours of that night, where that problem was discussed with the debates and discussions of all members who “crucified” former Prime Minister Shehu, the meeting of the morning of December 18, after the news that Prime Minister Mehme t Shehu had killed himself, the marathon meeting of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the ALP on September 20, 1982, with the topic: “Analysis of serious mistakes of Kadri Hazbiu, committed during the period when he was deputy minister and minister of Internal Affairs ”, where Enver Hoxha initially started accusing Kadri Hazbiu, luring him as a“ loyalist of the Party ”, (in order for him to“ open his heart to the Party ”, speaking against former Prime Minister Mehmet Shehu) , where at the beginning of his speech, Enver said: “After the coup in the army, we discovered the traitorous group in economics of Abdyl Këllez, Koço Theodhos and Kiço Ngjela with friends. We also discovered this group here; it was not discovered by the State Security. The same can be said about the discovery of the group of Fadil Paçrami, Todi Lubonja and a number of other people connected with them, such as Ismail Kadareja with friends, the Security did not reveal, but that hostile work was discovered by the Committee Central ”, etc.! All these and other documents with the logo ‘Top secret’, will be published in several issues in a row, exclusively by Memorie.al
Continued from the previous issue
The ‘Top Secret’ document with the correspondence between Enver Hoxha and Mehmet Shehu on October 19 and 28, 1981, after the self-criticism of former Prime Minister Mehmet Shehu, sent to Enver Hoxha and the Politburo of the Central Committee of the ALP, regarding the engagement of to his son, Skënder, with “a girl with a very bad political make-up”!
Top secret
“Draft-self-criticism” (“First self-criticism”) that Mehmet Shehu sent to comrade Enver Hoxha and “Self-criticism” (second variant) to comrade Enver Hoxha and comrades of the Politburo of the Central Committee as well as the minutes of the meeting Politburo of the Central Committee of the ALP, dated 17 – 18 December 1981: For the analysis of the serious mistake made by the former member of the Politburo, Mehmet Shehu, regarding the engagement of a boy with a girl with a very bad political composition .
The archival document with the letter of the former Prime Minister Mehmet Shehu, sent to Enver Hoxha and the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the ALP, where his second self-criticism is, regarding the “mistake he had made for the engagement of his second son, Skënder, with the daughter of prof. Qazim Turdiut”!
Dear friend Enver,
Dear friends of the Politburo
- Here in socialism, according to the Marxist-Leninist teachings of the Party, family and person cannot be separated from society, and when family and person belong to the revolution of socialism, the interest of family and society must be and are always in harmony. But why did this special sentimentality exist in me, with a micro-bourgeois character for Skënder, a sentimentality that is not noticed in me and the other two boys? It happens friends, (I say in social and fraternal confidence), that with this boy, with Skënder, I have had for a long time pronounced spiritual concerns.
This has been the subjective side of the issue, gripping me tightly with my sentimentality, which has obscured me in this case, the Marxist logic, which threw me into truly undeclared spiritual suffering, but severe and constant, that, by overestimating this subjective and psychological factor, and not balancing as well as enough the other side, the political-ideological side of the issue, finally led me there to err as I erred.
In this wrong thought and action of mine in this case, the basis of departure, is the abduction, the action not paved, not deep enough, that if I had deepened, I would have seen and understood with certainty that the judgment and action was not only against the interest of the Party, but also against the interest of my family and my son, but I was only stunned for a moment that I could not properly assess both aspects of the issue and in this particular case , in my opinion, as I said before, the aspect of feelings over that of common sense prevailed and prevailed, and the opposite did not happen, as it should have happened, if it were me, in those moments I would Marxist logic prevailed over micro-bourgeois sentimental sentiment.
I say that this is one of the reasons that led me to the mistake I made, because if I judged and examined the case in depth and not kidnapped, as I actually judged, I would realize that a wrong thought and action, was like in to the detriment of the interest of the Party, as well as to the detriment of the interest of my family, which throughout its life, has not made such a mistake, as well as against the interest of the boy himself. I am therefore fully convinced that if I had judged the matter deeply, openly and calmly, the micro-bourgeois sentimentality could not have obscured my revolutionary thought, and then I would not have made that mistake.
I have this conviction, that the fact is that even today, I do not accept in my family, my first two cousins (from my mother), who have been married since before the War, one with a rich peasant, who then she also became a ballist, while the other married the son of one who was among the leaders of the Vlora War (1920), against the Italians, but who, his son (my cousin’s husband), became a ballist and fought with we, with weapons in hand during the National Liberation War. In the case of my son’s engagement, I made a serious mistake, for the reasons I mentioned above and which I will continue to discuss below.
I would like to emphasize that I should not have made this mistake, even if it were to become a reality, that doubt and that fear I had for the boy’s life, which led me to the grave mistake I made. But I realized that in this case, I had made a serious mistake, only when my friend Enver took me by the hand and said: “What is Mehmet doing like this”!?
Then yes, I immediately gathered myself and told Comrade Enver that the mistake would be corrected at all costs and with this word: “at all costs”, I also had in mind the possibility that the boy would say to me: “I submitted the issue and the approval myself on and. I told you that if my proposal was not approved, I might not have gotten into this job, because I had not yet gotten in touch about the engagement talks with the girl and finally, marriage for me, might not even become a problem at all. “, And then the boy went through an even more serious mistake, to the point of extreme despair.
This is what I thought, always based on those considerations that I said, but Skënderi, although he was guilty of not choosing a girl, according to the social and political criteria that Fiqreti and I had recommended, but went and fell on the girl I said, he kept his composure and reacted correctly, exactly as Comrade Enver had predicted, and not as such an extreme possibility was adamant, with my subjectivist, unrealistic, sentimental and micro-bourgeois assumption.
I now understand the danger of the way I have judged this issue, by overestimating the psychological factor (subjectivist feeling, micro-bourgeois sentimentality towards the boy), and by not balancing to the right degree, so that the other factor, the ideological factor, completely prevails class, Marxist-Leninist logic. But this mistake of mine, appeared in the particular circumstances I mentioned above, and I do not think it is a general characteristic of me.
- I will never allow myself to think and act as I did in this particular case, when, by the mistake I made, I touched the principle of the Party, over the class struggle, and I will always strictly apply all Party principles in all walks of life.
Another negative element that led me to this grave mistake is also my abducted character, many times impulsive in life, at work and in decision making. This negative element in my character has been almost permanent, throughout my life, both before the War and during the War, and after the War. Impulsivity appears in me even in family life.
I have known this negative element in my character, even publicly and I know it, in different cases, I have even made self-criticism and I have tried to fight it, because I know, that it is not a normal feature, especially for a communist and especially for a leader. And as a result of my struggle against this negative element in my character, I have had some improvement, but I am aware that this flaw has not disappeared yet and as I said from time to time it appears during work, as it appears in life family.
It was precisely this negative element, one of the factors and negative elements that led me to err even in relation to the boy’s engagement. Thus, driven by my abducted temperament, I hastened, precipitated: since the boy would leave in those days for Sweden, to continue his postgraduate studies, I said that it would be good for the engagement to take place before he left. And so, by the acceleration of precipitation, evil was concretized.
If I had not rushed in this case, if I had thought that the engagement would take place later, at least by the end of the year, when the boy could come back from Sweden, on the occasion of the New Year holidays, surely either I would have delved into the content of this issue myself, I would have reflected and withdrawn from this wrong engagement decision, or I would have talked and consulted with friends, who would definitely have helped and helped me. I was told that such an engagement should not be made.
In fact, in the case of the engagement of my second son, Skënder, I hastened it so much that even with Fiqret, I did not judge and did not consider the case at length and from all sides, and with the other two boys and their wives, I did not even talk at all, but I said my opinion in a hurry, doing so, in a completely wrong way, as if for such a family issue, the boy (Skënder), “only my opinion was enough”! Reflecting on this issue now, I think that this is, so to speak, an arrogance that has its source in that concept of the past, according to which, “for such family issues, the head of the family has the last word.
In fact, when I expressed my opinion approving the engagement, it did not even cross my mind, nor did I try to find the causes and reasons that led me to that mistake, I say that maybe, even this has been a factor. Or a negative element, which has badly influenced making that wrong decision. I know and known as a trait of my character, which also appears in my work, is the speed in making the decision. Of course, there are other cases where the decision must be made quickly, because in those cases, if the decision is not made quickly, the delay will hurt you. But even when the decision has to be made quickly, it still has to be well weighed, to be fair.
But here, in the case of my mistake, regarding the engagement of the boy, I am not talking about the time factor; here it is not about making a decision within five minutes, within five hours, or within five days. In this case, it’s not the main thing, although it does matter. The main thing here I think is to measure, weigh the negative and positive sides of the issue, before making a decision, is to balance all the sides of the issue you are judging, the pros and cons, and then, after you have acted thus, to decide right, in the interest of the Party and society.
This is a general principle in making any decision. But when the decision has a political and ideological, social character, then this principle takes on a sharper, absolute character. And in the case of my son’s engagement, I was wrong precisely because I was in a hurry, both in terms of the time factor and in terms of the content factor.
If this negative element, in my way of acting, in my character and in my work style, would appear constantly and in any case in my life and in my work, in case this negative element, i.e., abduction in decision making it would be a permanent and general feature in my life and activity, it would be detrimental. I know that this negative element in my character has existed and exists, but I do not think it is permanent and general, but it is such that it appears in special cases, such as the last case of my son’s engagement.
However, this negative element in my character, if it was not always taken into account by me and if it was not constantly fought by me, in order to eliminate it and not to repeat it in cases when a quick decision should not be made, then this, it would also be to the detriment of the Party, which is the main thing, but also to my detriment as a communist, as a revolutionary. But I believe that I have the strength to fight and eradicate this negative element and this grave mistake I made will be of great value to me as a great lesson to make a radical turn, towards improvement, until the disappearance of this negative element in my character. Memorie.al
Continues in the next issue
