The coffin in the square

2026-07-05 11:00:00, Opinione Ardi Stefa

The coffin is one of the most powerful political symbols. It can be used as the ultimate metaphor for the "death" of a system, an idea, or a political career. But precisely because it carries such a heavy symbolic weight, its use in a civic protest is always debatable. Although it has been used in protests around the world to symbolically declare that a power is "dead" even though it continues to govern.

But precisely because it is the most serious metaphor, the question arises: "Does a coffin have a place in a peaceful civic protest? Is this symbol a sign of democratic maturity, or evidence that Albanian politics continues to confuse theater with democracy, spectacle with cause, and funeral with victory?"

A democratic protest aims to persuade, not intimidate; to mobilize citizens, not create a deathly atmosphere. When a coffin appears in the square, (especially after chants of “Death to traitors!”) attention often shifts away from the cause and focuses on the symbol. The debate is no longer about injustice, corruption, or misgovernment, but about the limits of protest ethics.

Symbols have extraordinary power. A flag can unite a nation; a toppled statue can mark the end of a regime; a coffin can announce the symbolic end of a power. But dark symbols can also fuel hate speech and escalate polarization.

Democracy thrives on opposition, not demonization. Political opponents must be defeated with votes, arguments, and civic pressure, not with metaphors that border on political symbolism and physical death. Even when the goal is only "political death," the symbol can be interpreted differently by the public.

The ancient Romans knew well the power of public ceremonies. Triumphs and funerals were instruments of power. Whoever controlled the symbol controlled the emotion of the crowd. Since then, politics has understood that people are often persuaded not by argument, but by image.

The coffin is precisely an attempt to replace argument with image. It does not invite debate; it announces a verdict and asks the citizen only to applaud the symbolic "burial" of the opponent.

But democracy does not recognize a political funeral without elections. In a democracy, powers are not buried in the square; they are overthrown at the ballot box. Any other path is closer to the logic of the crowd than to the culture of the republic.

The fact is that authoritarian powers have always nurtured this kind of symbolism. The totalitarianisms of the 20th century were not satisfied with conquering the opponent; they also wanted to "bury" him in the collective memory. Political defeat was not enough for them; symbolic elimination was also required. But where the symbolic burial of the opponent begins, the burial of pluralism often also begins.

Even philosophers and political scientists have warned about this. When we insist on emotions, the crowd no longer seeks the truth; it seeks the spectacle.

A civic protest should be a demonstration of moral superiority over power, not a competition for the most macabre metaphor. Its strength lies in citizens, in argument, in dignity, and in the ability to convince even those who think differently. Not in providing food and a pretext for power to attack.

So the debate is not about whether or not to allow the use of a coffin. Democracy also allows provocative symbols. The debate is about whether that object serves the cause. A protest wins when it awakens the conscience of citizens, not when it shocks them with images that can obscure the message. When the symbol becomes stronger than the argument, the protest risks losing the moral force that makes it legitimate.

In a democracy, ideas can "die", governments and powers can fall. But political language should not be buried with them.

So, be careful with metaphors. Every era that has begun by symbolically burying opponents has ended by burying freedom.