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
ALBANIAN LABOR PARTY
CENTRAL SECRETARY COMMITTEE
PROCESS – VERBAL
OF THE MEETING OF THE POLITICAL BUREAU OF THE CENTRAL AFFAIRS OF THE ALP DATES
17 E 18 DECEMBER 1981
Agenda: Analysis of the serious mistake made by the member of the Politburo, Mehmet Shehu, regarding the engagement of a boy with a girl with a very bad political composition.
This meeting is attended by all members of the Politburo, with the exception of Comrade Hekuran Isai, who did not come because his mother died last night.
COMRADE PROKOP MURRA: You, Comrade Mehmet, were not for Plasa and you even gave the scheme to the Ministry of Agriculture. I went to the Ministry of Agriculture a couple of times because I was not very familiar with the problems of agriculture, when I was here, in the Central Committee, but I could not break it, because the head of this department, they had your pressure there.
COMRADE MEHMET SHEHU: Now you say that I was not for Plasa and for the intensification of agriculture?
COMRADE PROKOP MURRA: No, you were not, and this is what Comrade Enver said now…!
COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: Why are we telling you now, why are we following these examples? Do you like to look, to appropriate the merits of others? Here, this is closely related to the “self” that we are pointing out, with arrogance, with all that friends are saying one after another. You are caught now, no it is not, but it is not so.
COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: These are facts and no one told you that you are not for the intensification, only to say that for the experience of Plasa, you were not determined and the fact is that the experience of this cooperative has been left behind, not in Korça, there is only 10% behind, it is lagging behind in other plain areas, in other districts.
COMRADE RAMIZ ALIA: I said that too, Comrade Enver. This is not the idea of Comrade Mehmet. Where there is the idea of comrade Mehmet, he does the service properly to the work, whiles this one of Plasa, let’s say in Albanian, did not do the service to comrade Mehmet. I even remember that at the 7th Party Congress, we had a little quarrel over this very issue.
COMRADE MANUSH MYFTIU: We have a duty to help Comrade Mehmet, but he also has a duty to help himself, to think and reflect and not to ask us with dozens of examples, only one is enough, because we will not we continue.
COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: Yes, that’s really his job. It makes things difficult, Mehmet; it seems to me, if we get caught up in an issue, such as, have you seen that quote or not. After all, even though they put a quote in a ward, the work is not broken. But it’s not just that, there are plenty of other things that show your arrogance and the tendency to overestimate and praise your person. And there are many flatterers who are ready to put you on this path. Flatterers do not eat grass and when they see that you eat these praises, they are ready to tell you three or four more.
COMRADE PHOTO ÇAMI: Many of these flaws that are manifested in Comrade Mehmet are also in the Party School. Even Mrs. Fiqret holds a crooked position, she does not accept any criticism for the work done there, and she does not accept any discussion. Accepts any remarks or suggestions with great difficulty. Generally it creates the impression as if in School, everything is fine, as if there is no room for correction, for no improvement. In addition, a serious environment has been created there, Fiqreti makes the law, while the whole pedagogues, have become like chickens, they do not dare to freely express the opinions they have. They have to ask Fiqret about everything, they cannot do anything without her permission.
There is a sick spirit of conformism among the pedagogues there; an unpleasant situation has been created. This was also evident at the meeting of the Party organization of the Party School pedagogues, when the issue of Fiqret’s stay was analyzed, regarding the boy’s engagement. Instead of taking a stand and criticizing Fiqret for this action he had taken and for the responsibility he held, they all turned the gathering into a tribune of praise, praising Fiqret “for a Bolshevik self-criticism”, etc., etc.
This servility has gone so far that, according to a friend, one evening they did there, one of them raised a toast, saying: “Let’s have a drink for the commissar, for the mother of the mothers”, to the point of absurdity such have reached.
COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: How did you say this, did you tell us once again that I did not understand?
COMRADE PHOTO ÇAMI: One of them raised a toast at a dinner held at the Party School: “for the commissar of commissars”, “For the mother of mothers”!
COMRADE ENVER HOXHA: The flatterers. Another told me that in a meeting, someone stood up and said: “What criticizes this; this was said by the great strategist of Albania, comrade Mehmet Shehu”! So, what Fiqreti does, of course, is also covered under the name of Mehmet. We need to understand this.
COMRADE PHOTO ÇAMI: I was talking here, Comrade Enver, that we should go deeper into these problems together, that Comrade Fiqrete is also a pretty cadre, a member of the Central Committee and as she is responsible for the act she performs related with the engagement, he is also responsible for this behavior, and the attitudes he held in the School, which were also discussed at the last meeting of the party organization.
As for the children, I think that Comrade Mehmet and Comrade Fiqrte should think more deeply, that there are many problems related to their education. There is a lot of talk about the behavior of children, especially the last two boys. And this is related to the fact that comrade Mehmet has created opportunities for them and allows them to do everything, to behave as they want even for those things that others are criticized. For a necklace, comrade Mehmet has made a name for himself when he has met someone like this, and in the behavior of his children, he allows things that are very extravagant and flagrant.
This is again related to what we are always saying, to the feeling of superiority in him, according to which: “I am allowed to do everything; others cannot do as I do”. This has to do with what he always put himself in a privileged, special position, above others, above norms, above the Party line.
From all these remarks and criticisms, I think that Comrade Mehmet should draw opinions and conclusions, deepen his self-criticism and especially make a turn in attitudes and concrete actions in his daily work. This is required by the great interest of the Party and of comrade Mehmet himself. I agree with the view that this action should be punished, as well as with the measure proposed here.
From this meeting came many problems for the method and style of work, which are of value to all of us and will help us improve the work in the spirit of the tasks set at the 8th Party Congress and the efforts to be made to implement the tire.
COMRADE PROKOP MURRA: I also carefully read the self-criticism of Comrade Mehmet. There were more recorded events, circumstances and regrets, but very little analysis is done, the causes that brought this situation are not related. The act committed by him is very serious, why the Party line is affected, while the self-criticism he has made is very dim and in the answers he gave to his friends I think that so far he is not reacting correctly, it even seems as if he does not wants to react.
Comrade Mehmet was criticized at the meeting of the Politburo for the delay in making self-criticism and on this issue he does not say a word, why this happens to him. On the other hand, I say that even in the submission of self-criticism, one day before the meeting of the Politburo, there is haste on his part. He in self-criticism does not say a word about the very important problems raised by Comrade Enver at that meeting of the Politburo. I understand that the analysis of these problems takes some time, but not to mention them at all, not to speak about the need to look at them and not to show solidarity with the content of the problems posed by Comrade Enver, it does not seem to me right, I should even say, that for these comrade Mehmet should be deepened.
He orders Comrade Enver to make self-criticism, he delays this, Comrade Enver raises many problems of method and style at work, and he does not take these in his mouth at all! When he does this with his friend Enver, what about the other friends then?! They look like flies. He should have helped us with his self-criticism of these great issues raised by Comrade Enver that we too might then try to unravel, to find the causes of these just concerns raised by Comrade Enver in his speech.
I do not know why Comrade Mehmet holds these attitudes, but one thing is clear, these are not forgetfulness, because from the comrades even in the last meeting, he was told: Comrade Mehmet, reflect and connect self-criticism with these issues. I think that for these he is hindered by the overestimation, “I”, not infrequently putting himself above the Party. From the speech of Comrade Enver in the Politburo and from reading the self-criticism of Comrade Mehmet, I have tried to see myself, to see this in relation to work and family.
I have not spared the work, but I have not always done it well. I have to delve into a number of important problems that pose concerns for the Party and to face more courageously the cases of euphoria and incorrect attitudes observed in Comrade Mehmet and some comrades of the Presidency. It is true that I have said to the Government and the Presidency: o let us speak, or do not call us in vain.
Yes, comrade Mehmet connects this a bit with what my friend Lenka said, with your attitude towards the friends of the camera. I may be wrong, but he must have this opinion. If we raised anything, he would answer: What about you, what do you do? What does the Party do? Yes we of the Party are all. In case you are going to talk about the grassroots organization, it’s not the place to talk here, at the Government meeting. Of course we had our responsibility, state problems were discussed there. That is why I connect the issue with what my friend Lenka raised. It happened to her, it happened to me, it happened to my friend from the Women’s Organization, it happened. Is there any deconsideration here for the Central Committee apparatus by Comrade Mehmet?
As for the family, I have no problems, but I am indebted, that I have to deal with them something more. Our children live in the people, so they should be as simple, as modest and as polite as possible. From the children for the first time I heard how it happens that comrade Mehmet, is so strict towards foreign shows and now on the other hand allows his son’s bride, to go out in public with all sorts of fashions, not only that , but also side by side with Fiqret? Let then for the case of Skënder who got engaged to Turdi’s daughter the children were surprised.
Now I draw this conclusion: our children, our young people know the Party line much better than Comrade Mehmet. In this regard, we should be more careful about the directorate that serves us, because many whispers arise from the differences and people are taken by the mouth. A number of things were said here, but I have the impression that even Comrade Adil, who has this directorate online, should be careful, because that is where the differences are made first.
Comrade Mehmet’s responsibility is very serious; the step he took is such that even a simple communist can rarely find it. In self-criticism, he seems to take every responsibility upon himself. It is clear that he has the main responsibility, but I think that Mrs. Fiqrtet also has many responsibilities. Comrade Mehmet says in self-criticism that, being closed to him for family matters, I badly influenced my wife Fiqret that she might ask. Here he takes it under his armpit. But who prevented comrade Mehmet and comrade Fiqrtet from asking? The last thing they would ask about, when the girl’s biography was clear, both from the data of Comrade Feçor and from those of Skënder himself.
He justifies himself for the speed of Skënder’s engagement that he would go to Sweden, so if he had pushed him and not been in a hurry, he would either have reflected him or asked his friends. Neither for this have had I had no conviction, why it is not an argumentative reasoning. If he had the prey to ask, he should do it; it did not take long, half an hour was enough. It seems to me that he did not want to ask, thinking that: “friends will come and visit me, congratulate me and so everything is legalized”.
I think that some friends from other sectors are also responsible for this, who has allowed the rules and norms that have been set to be broken. For example, why should this girl with this biography who is a volleyball player be allowed to go abroad, or why is she from the “Dinamo” team? When living in such elementary districts, they were not allowed to go outside. But even for the permission of Skënder who accompanied the team, is there no one responsible here? Nor does he, even comrade Mehmet himself, it seems to me, has a responsibility in this matter.
COMRADE KADRI HAZBIU: I think it is not Comrade Mehmet’s fault for taking the girl out.
COMRADE PROKOP MURRA: Yes, I do not mean Comrade Mehmet, but to the one who gives the approval, which approves him to go? Who approved Skënder to go with the volleyball team? That illegally he did not go? So someone has approved it and that someone has a responsibility, I think. Comrade Mehmet says that, if someone asked him to marry a family with such a circle, he would answer not to do it.
This is somewhat anachronistic, why even if he started from the thought, that this girl would not affect his family, because he supposedly felt immune to the influence of the enemy, but he did not think that he introduced her among other friends? I agree with what Comrade Ramiz says, that the action taken by Comrade Mehmet means: O men, get up now and get engaged to the daughters of the declassed. The problem now is that he is the Prime Minister. How much will this job cost? It is spoken and lectured differently, and it is acted differently. This is not going.
I think, as all the comrades here said, with the action of comrade Mehmet, two lines emerge in the Party, even for very serious, very delicate issues. How can one pass on what is rightly said, that danger comes from what one forgets? How can the class war be forgotten, but we have heard tons of lectures from you, comrade Mehmet, and also from comrade Fiqrete. This is not about forgetting the implementation of a task, a decision. We are all parents, we have feelings, we also have obligations, but sentimentality should not lead us to where it led you. I myself am convinced that sentimentality will not get me as far as touching the Party line.
Comrade Mehmet says it is impulsive. Everyone should be impulsive, but within the norms, as long as the Party line is not violated. If you are kidnapped, accompanied by arrogance and arrogance, these are matters of tact. This has been reflected in your work and in your relationships with friends and key associates with whom you have collaborated. I had the impression and I once said in the Politburo, that your comrades, comrade Mehmet, do not raise things in time and properly. For a lot of trouble, I noticed that my friends were reluctant to tell you things as they were, they would probably talk a little glaze and be late! Memorie.al
The next issue follows