Recent events have shocked the country and and the debates are marked by astonishment. It seems every day in the air the dark expectation of morbidity, as to what can be the next morning. Trust is a quality that is no longer referenced in the dialogues of the public thing or in the way we build the corporate fact of each day. The dialogues and civic conversations seem to be suspicious and the trivial becomes a condition of substance, denying any possibility to moderation.
What is necessary already lacks all rationality. The reason, the corporate expression of consensus, must have been sacrificed to the good of a certain dark prospective that is based on the argument shortage. Two or three words are enough. The propensity points towards the stimulus of the well-known proto-discourse, with pretensions of presumably moral failure.
Those who have studied the phenomenon of crowds in social histories, must be desolate to calibrate the scope and background of what the virtual public fact manifests, in a civil society that seems disarticulated and that is expressed, segmentariamente, in Spurious forums or disguised gossip of virtual groups, without epic or account, to collection of the responsibility of that citizen who went out to debate in the streets or in the Athenaeums or assemblies of the best Republic.
It is no longer a question of debating around the best qualified or around the virtues that the republic demands, but the atrabiliario debate imposes the perverse logic that the public servant survives disqualification and public lynching.
Some have arrogated the task of Charles H. Sanson, to fulfill the desire of a certain virtual people who avidly cries for more heads. The visceral and the snipers of the Denostación, transformed into Incensados arguers of a fallacious species of public morality, thus become a de facto tribunal, attending virtual stonings as perverse as the real ones.
The question we must ask ourselves is who – with a mastery in science and philosophy – will want to endure such irrationality and verbal violence in the future and seek to opt for public service? No doubt, not the best, but, as in shipwrecks, only survivors.
We must not lose sight of that, in every society and time, there will always be provocateurs that induce stoning to Magdalena, charged with the worst behaviors, without even knowing their alleged sins. What matters to them is the very act of stoning. It is executed by opaque authors whose names history forgets, because no one will vindicate them. The modesty of the social memory will prefer to forget them, but-unfortunately-the victim remains in the public square to shame all of the collective crime.
In the face of the above, which atosiga to the rational sense and good practices of exercising citizenship, we must ask ourselves: what have we gained and lost as a republic in this maelstrom full of collective paranoia that, day by day, is undermining every sense Corporate and our country potential? The balance needs to be done.
What is destroyed in any true civics is balanced by great constructions that orient the peoples towards virtue. Individual virtues, collective virtues, good sense that helps to move towards coexistence and the formation of a strong public awareness.
What do we owe to the Republic – the space of all – from the civic place of each, in the different social roles that we have to fulfil, as people and citizens, and even more, when we must endilgar to the strengths of a real public opinion?
Helping to strengthen public opinion seems to be the great challenge and not to pervert it according to the interests of passengers, fugases and subordinates, since the civic construction of the duly informed citizens is the only thing that produces true and fruitful benefit Social.
The content poured in this opinion column is the sole responsibility of its author, and does not necessarily reflect the editorial line or position of the counter.
