In Serbia, North Macedonia, Albania, Kosovo, you will hear the same sentences from officials: “The system should follow this”, “The system has nothing to do with it”, “It is not my country, I only apply the law”. “If you want it to be changed, talk to the minister!”
By Ben ANDONI
Hannah Arendt would come to Albania very late. The regime was wary of individuals who showed totalitarianism to its darkest depths, so they were kept at a distance, whether through publications or even simple mention. The publication of Arendt’s book in 2021 (Dudaj Publishing House, translated by Agim Doksani) widely showed the public her philosophical thought on the category of evil, but more than anything, its paradoxes.
What made the book influential beyond its time, even to this day, is the concept of the “Banality of Evil,” which the philosopher used in a series of articles for “The New Yorker” in early 1963. Her elaborate report was published as a book at the end of that same year under the title “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.” Her observation and observation of the bureaucrats of the Third Reich did not impress her Jewish compatriots in Jerusalem and her colleagues in the United States, but over time, it was seen that this observation turned out to be true for a phenomenon that, once outlined, would change form but not content. The observation was special: While everyone saw Eichmann as a monster or a madman, she described the Nazi official as simply a mediocre bureaucrat of the time, with a mind fixated only on career. For this, the euphemisms of the time helped him, and the Germans were masters at inventing them: “Special treatment,” “evacuation,” “final solution.” Eichman meticulously implemented the rules of the Third Reich, but never managing to make the moral judgment that belongs to a rational being.
At that time, every good bureaucrat simply and precisely did what was asked of him, because he had to please his superior and his career goals. For Arendt, this was considered “carelessness”, not stupidity or waste. The same phenomenon was seen in the 90s in the former Yugoslavia. Many Slavic bureaucrats turned a blind eye while the people of the former Yugoslavia drowned in blood. They spoke of superior responsibility, because they were simply part of the mechanism people who secretly knew very well what they were doing. The Tribunal for crimes in the former Yugoslavia later showed the massacres in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the exodus from Kosovo, but also the consequences for ordinary Serbian citizens. The cynicism of the commanders, bureaucratic governors and former President Milosevic will be remembered for a long time for the lack of morality and cynicism, covered up by law and “right”.
Just as no single German killed 6 million Jews, Arendt argued that: Each person performed a small, legal and technical task. This distributed responsibility and somewhat absolved the Nazi leaders of responsibility. The synthesis of everything was explained with the metaphor “The Banality of Evil”, where evil was committed by ordinary people who could not be called monsters, but who simply stopped thinking, in order to maintain their status quo, benefits and everything else that ensured their miserable survival. Does this apply to modern bureaucrats? Albanians?!
The context is not exactly the same. Totalitarianism vs. Democracy. But the phenomenon: Yes. Today we are faced with officials who implement decisions simply to please their superiors. In SPAK, there are many characters who have explained this phenomenon, with the excuse that they were forced. Or others that they signed, influenced. In the judicial process for the former president, Meta; former ministers, Beqaj and Koka; mayor Veliaj, and others, in the files you have many such facts, direct and indirect. Officials who have signed or worse in their presumptuous role have covered up processes and alleged wealth. They did not think, they simply acted for short-term gain, what awaits you behind the door and gives you status in the society of pleasure, which already spoils the real life of the Albanian who survives. If you thought and showed that you know how to reason and respect the morality of goodness, you will be shown the door. Usually. Which means that survival awaits you. Suddenly you have left the system, which is maintained by a whole mechanism with strong aggregates, the tempering of which is done by firms without thought and without morals. This evil happens often in our democracy, but now the “exit” from it is bribery (According to Eurostat, in 2024, 261 criminal proceedings for bribery were registered, or 10.9 proceedings per 100 thousand inhabitants. With this level, Albanians rank second in Europe for bribery in relation to the population).
“Evil comes from the failure to think. It challenges thought, because as soon as thought tries to engage with evil and examine the premises and principles from which they originate, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. This is the banality of evil,” Arendt wrote. This is what Albanian citizens often ask young bureaucrats, to think not only with reason but also with morality and heart. To overlook and correct the system’s mistakes and their own and not to cover themselves with them, not to sign in vain, as happened with the earthquake palaces, with 5D, or worse still with the people who were passed over in the vetting process. The civilized world is asking American bureaucrats today in the face of the issues brought by the ‘Trump’ administration and most of which contain undemocratic issues, such as those related to immigration detention systems and which created clashes between the people in the US; the procedures for targeting drone attacks; programs related to data collection; or worst of all: of those ideas that inspired Trump to say that a civilization ends today!! Returning to the Albanian case, you see this at every step, where most of the administration bureaucrats are making life difficult for Albanians, without having the courage to tell the officials close to Rama, when they overdo it: Enough!
The Arendt-ian thesis was sour yesterday, but relevant today and more or less shows you in the ethics of thought at what point the standard phrase: “I was just doing my job” stops being a real defense? It is true that our officials, those who deal with taxes, loans or inspectors, not infrequently decide to directly harm people (some do and have been referred to) but they are supposedly justified in implementing systems. Arendt taught us that ethical dissent is rare: the totalitarian structure rewards compliance and punishes questions. Damage is always attributed to the system, not individual malice. In Albania, you usually only watch free humor-investigative shows with our administration. The parallel with the Eichmann system seems a bit excessive since it aimed at extermination. Whereas modern bureaucracies in democracies usually have neutral goals, and damage is a side effect. Let’s not forget that modern liberal states have laws to protect whistleblowers; courts; a free press; even though you see the whistleblower law, there is hope even though it is not being implemented.
In Eichmann’s time, he and his colleagues operated in a totalitarian system where refusal meant death without appeal. The post-Nuremberg law set a moral standard, where individuals had to refuse clearly illegal orders. This is Arendt’s merit for our time: even “legal” orders can require refusal. Our argument is not to call modern bureaucrats “Nazis,” but to diagnose a mechanism: When bureaucrats focus solely on procedure, career, and profit, they can achieve harmful outcomes without ever intending them or feeling responsible, the literature suggests. This is why the “banality of evil” is increasingly cited by international colleagues and analysts in debates about the ethics of artificial intelligence, military drones, immigration policy, and financial regulation.
In Serbia, North Macedonia, Albania, Kosovo, you will hear the same sentences from officials: “The system should follow this”, “The system has nothing to do with it”, “It’s not my country, I just apply the law”.
“If you want it changed, talk to the minister!” Arendt’s lesson from her view of Eichman is to focus on the rules, but also look at the consequences. In Nazi Germany, the system rewarded ideological conformity well. In Fascist Italy a little more so. Communism here, too. In the Balkans, the system is today rewarding loyalty to the ruling party. Not for nothing, many bureaucrats keep their jobs because they are on a party list. Arendt’s Eichmann wanted career advancement within a totalitarian structure. Balkan bureaucrats often want to keep their jobs in a clientelistic structure… which democracy creates as paradoxes. The psychological effect is similar: responsibility is distributed – but the incentive is patronage, not ideology. Let us close again with Arendt: “Apart from an extraordinary zeal in the pursuit of his own personal advancement, he had no motives at all… Simply, to put it plainly, he never understood what he was doing… It was a complete thoughtlessness – something not at all identical with madness – that predisposed him to become one of the greatest criminals of that period. And if this is ‘banal’ and even ridiculous, if with the best will in the world no acute or diabolical depth can be extracted from Eichmann, this is still far from what can be called an ordinary phenomenon… That such distance, then, from reality and such thoughtlessness can do more havoc than all the evil instincts taken together, which are, perhaps, the least natural to man.” Epilogue: Gjon Mili visually unraveled this paradox for “Life” with the extraordinary photos he took of Eichmann in the last hours of his life, so that generations would have it as evidence. (Panorama.al)