There is another way
What is wrong is being naturalized at great speed
In other times, candidates promised honesty. They knew that this nice idea seduced voters. Today, many have chosen to eliminate this kind of values from their vocabulary and hide behind other slogans that are as empty as they are cynical..
Several public opinion studies confirm this. The optimal profile of the ideal candidate includes being honest, however, the protagonists, knowing this demand, prefer to hide and talk about other topics.
Most leaders are not in a position to pass the acid test that implies explaining how they have managed to build their family fortune, and those who can exhibit it thanks to their successful professional or business activity, are limited because they are directly associated with dubious personalities. reputation, they either receive now, or eventually will receive later, funds from rather opaque sources.
In this framework, there is no more chance for the players of the moment than to act distracted and be creative when it comes to speeches in order to surf the situation and look forward as if the present did not exist and the past had disappeared.
This does not mean, in any way, that all leaders are dishonest, but at this point it would seem that very few can pass the filter of this massive civic distrust that falls on political activity, by the way, well documented in light of the facts. So far this allegation only intends to make a description as truthful as it is potentially unfair due to its generalization, but at the same time it appeals to invite reflection to review the deep roots so hidden behind this improper and inadmissible behavior as a community.
Voters vehemently assert that politicians steal, that they are thieves. They are completely sure that this presumption is accurate to the point that they have resigned themselves to the fact that this criminal attitude of appropriating what belongs to others is so common, so cross-party, and socially acceptable, despite how despicable it is.
That logic has also led them to console themselves with the efficacy of politics, assuming that “they steal, but they do”. After all, if they are going to keep everyone’s money, at least leave a visible legacy, something tangible that citizens can enjoy and remember as a legacy of management.
Given this, many obviously get scared. They understand that it is indecent that people meekly endorse this perverse scheme without saying anything at all, without denouncing it in court, without at least shouting it out loud. This generates a painful impotence, a destructive frustration, anger at indifference, but also enormous guilt at feeling complicit in the obvious and admitting not having the courage to oppose this devastating inertia. Some, in a simplistic epic, could argue that they are not only corrupt politicians, but also intrinsically immoral citizens, lacking a minimum ethics that pushes them to actively react to such nonsense on a daily basis.
The most daring will look for anthropological explanations, others will assign responsibility to the first inhabitants of this territory or perhaps they will blame the immigrants who populated these lands and brought their customs with them.
Maybe that discussion doesn’t make much sense. Little could be done about it whatever the conclusion. Now it is necessary to define what to do in the face of the specific dilemma that is going through in this controversial stage.
Of course moral standards need to be revised if you want to get out of this labyrinth, but it is no less true that it is vital to review the sequence that stimulates the aberrant behaviors of traditional politics that not only continue, but are perfected with unacceptable greed.
Many of them, in private, timidly argue that this debatable way of acting is the “only” way they found to finance the complexity of party activity. To exculpate themselves, they maintain that if this were not the case, only the rich could be candidates and that would exclude “normal” citizens. It sounds complacent and very convenient for the interests of those interlocutors who then not only use resources for their deployment, but also to obscenely swell their assets.
Society deserves a serious debate about it. The wrong doesn’t magically become right. This film could end very badly institutionally, in fact, today the prestige of institutions such as parliament or justice are destroyed. Nobody believes in control bodies or audits. They feel that they are all the same, part of a corporation that has dark agreements to stay in power at any cost and that the disputes are a parody of reality. The challenge does not go through the childish posture of tearing one’s clothes, nor looking for the “Robin Hood” willing to immolate themselves to confront the powerful. It is a question of building a serious agenda that allows for in-depth discussion, unblocking the basics such as the financing of politics, being honest about it accordingly and putting aside the comfort that hypocrisy grants in order to search for a reasonable system that allows recover the credibility of politics and return key values to democracy.
We invite you to read more from the author: