Editorial: Worlds apart
A strategy of division and tension was adopted by a segment of the political system, as a means to come to power. It is a strategy that it still uses today, in order to remain in power, along with the civil war mentality, both politically and morally, of “Your death, my life".
Two different worlds faced off during yesterday’s parliamentary debate.
The one produced strong argumentation, and the other a paucity of arguments; the one defended in a structured and insightful manner its life and works, and the other dished out allegations with hollow rhetoric and pointless slogans; the one shouldered responsibilities greater than its fair share when that was called for, and the other, in the face of the political wear of its governmental responsibilities and choices marshaled hooded witnesses; the one did not fear mudslinging, and the other engaged in it in a state of panic.
The scheme may be Manichaeistic, but it is not without significance. It illuminates what was denounced as a plot, and indeed as the greatest and most shoddy in the post-junta era, but it also highlighted the fundamental political problem of the crisis.
That problem is the strategy of division and tension, that was adopted by a segment of the political system, as a means to come to power. It is a strategy that it still uses today, in order to remain in power, along with the civil war mentality, both politically and morally, of “Your death, my life”.
If there is something that should be forgotten from yesterday’s parliamentary debate, it is the ironic laughter of one of the accusers at the emotional charge in the speech of one of the accused.
If there is something that should be retained, it is the institutional manner in which the accused transformed a plot into charges against their accusers.
History will judge the rest.