By Ben Andoni
The concept of the “Imperialism of the Word” belongs to the scholar Roland Barthes, who explored it through the lens of the power of words, signs, and the evolving future of their interpretation. Only a mind as sharp as his could venture to the fringes where words clash and collide with images.
In arguments where linguistics, anthropology, and history attempt to unpack things we face every day, the role of language is often prematurely concluded — as if its sole function is to communicate, while images are left to trigger sensory perceptions.
Yet, the time we live in reveals something else entirely. The word and the image no longer align with the reality we face. The war in the Middle East and U.S. attacks on Iran; the distorted or absent dialogue on the New World Order being filtered through countless confusing channels; the erratic local political landscape, where what is presented to the public sharply diverges from what actually happens — all of it shows how words and images mislead perception. No wonder we’re tangled — intentionally or not — in allegiances to conflicts, most commonly pro-U.S.; just as we barricade ourselves within the theatrics of domestic politics, caught between Rama and Berisha, the undisputed protagonists of national life. But dig deeper and you’ll see: the opposing sides do talk, and the global powers have multiple channels through which they assert their interests — almost always at the expense of the weak.
Here, in a narrow field like ours, the average citizen is stunned to learn how frequently the votes of the Socialist Party and the Democratic Party align in defense of their interests — even culminating in an Electoral Code they later publicly condemn with venom after the elections are done! Never more than today has the word become so necessary to hide behind. What is written is often a far cry from what is imagined, or genuinely thought. Aside from the BIG presidents (Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping), who toy with the fate of the world and don’t even bother invoking democracy anymore (as if they have no need for it), it’s nauseating to hear our own politicians casually throw around terms like “democracy” and “freedom,” while their true meaning has long since eroded. George Orwell, with his sharp observational eye, once called them “meaningless words.” According to him, terms like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice” have been so overused that their original meanings have completely vanished. Worse still, Orwell believed these words are “often used consciously in a dishonest way.”
To believe today that the U.S. won’t intervene — as per some Trump-style promise; or that Israel fights solely for “righteousness” while now bombing refugees even as they collect bread; to take Iran at its word that it seeks uranium solely for civilian purposes (!); or to believe the West when it says no one should possess nuclear weapons — all while it tolerates Netanyahu — is to be jolted by the sheer hypocrisy of language. A hypocrisy laid bare when the West’s “moral compass” leaves Ukraine exposed to a ruthless power like Russia. And then come Putin’s declarations, taking us back to the rhetoric of aggressors from eight decades ago — like his recent, chilling remark: “wherever the Russian soldier steps, that is Russian land.”
In this context, our political discourse holds no weight on the global chessboard. But it should, at the very least, be responsible to the ordinary Albanian — the one now thinking of how to flee the country as soon as possible, and the ones left behind, struggling against the injustices lurking in the judiciary, the public administration, and the culture of futility. Instead of answers, the Socialist Party is preparing an Academy to teach rookie MPs how to tailor their rhetoric in service of the Party; while the Democratic Party, rather than offering real solutions to its followers, continues to dangle the bogeyman of the 2025 elections — elections they were warned about, advised on, and asked to prepare for long ago. Yet all of that is pointless: Berisha’s word overshadows everything else with the argument that he is irreplaceable. Meanwhile, within the Socialist Party, Rama has become a figure spoken of in terms reserved for the irreplicable — a singularity in the history of the party.