Why nothing happens and why nothing changes

Summary

The text reflects on the intricate dynamics of political responsibility, change, and corruption, emphasizing the complex interplay between voters, politicians, and those who disengage from the process.

Abstract

The author presents a contemplative monologue on the stagnation of political change, attributing it to the shared responsibility of both the electorate and the elected. The piece suggests that individuals often fail to recognize their own potential for corruption upon entering politics, and voters may absolve themselves of responsibility after casting their ballots. It highlights the paradox of expecting salvation from politicians while not actively participating in the process of change. The text also touches on the various reactions to systemic corruption, ranging from resistance to resignation, and the self-deceptive narratives people construct to justify their inaction or complicity. The author argues that true change requires personal accountability and the challenging work of self-improvement and education within one's community, despite the temptation to give in to cynicism or inertia.

Opinions

The author believes that those who enter politics often underestimate the influence of the political world on their values and actions.
There is a critique of the electorate's tendency to limit their sense of responsibility to the act of voting, without continued engagement in the political process.
The text suggests that those who choose not to vote abdicate their responsibility entirely, either through disillusionment or by not recognizing the power of their participation.
It is observed that people may advocate for change while simultaneously avoiding personal effort or sacrifice, expecting politicians to bear the full burden of reform.
The author reflects on the self-serving justifications used by individuals who engage in corrupt practices, often blaming the system rather than acknowledging personal guilt.
The piece emphasizes that meaningful change is hindered by the lack of individual and collective responsibility, and the widespread reluctance to confront the realities of human nature and the challenges of enacting change.
The author cites H.G. Wells to underscore the futility of laws without a corresponding change in human behavior and the inevitability of people finding ways to circumvent rules.

Imagined monologue taking place at the Anticafé, on Rue de la Division

Photo by Ema Dumitru

He, who believes himself incorruptible has the certainty and confidence of the man who cannot imagine other circumstances than the ones he experienced so far. Such a simple matter and still no one understands it completely. Neither the politician, nor the one who votes for him. When you enter politics, you enter another world. How can you tell people anything about yourself when you‘re barely being born in that world?

And then you wake up to find everybody startled. Nothing is really changing. They want explanations. Once they vote, people think they’re done. They’ve only limited their responsibility. Ah, the small victories. Of course, for the good people winning a battle brings you closer to winning the war. For the others is merely entertainment. The parade of vulnerability. I am bleeding; therefore, you must have mercy.

The ones who don’t vote, they go all the way. They decline responsibility entirely. People don’t think of themselves as authorities of change or of any fight. The ones who dropped their weapons, they did it either because they don’t care anymore or because they don’t think of those as real weapons. They ridicule them and the ones who use them. The vultures hunt, devour their prey. When everything is over, who comes to feast with the remains?

Change doesn’t come, or if it does, it comes very slow, because it’s so often disrupted. Guess who’s responsible, Monsieur? We, we who advocate for change, who desire it on every level and as fast as possible. Moreover, if it’s possible for us not to move a finger. Why do you think it’s so hard for the one expecting to be saved to imagine the politician expecting the same? Because foisting responsibility frees his conscience and soothes his frustration. Identifying with the one he perceives as his savior would only bring him despair. If I can’t save myself, and the other can’t, what will happen with me? Such awareness is rare, because it is so hard to endure. We punish the one who denied us help, so we can bear ourselves.

In the moment you disagree with the way things are going, either you resist it, either you give in to inertia. I’m saying such obvious things. And still, look at them complaining about corruption, do they resist it? Many give in to it. And then justify it the best they can. As I said before, some don’t see themselves as authorities, they wait for change to come from the top. Others, while advocating for it, rush like babies at the sight of a nipple that’s still giving milk. And, of course, my favorites, the ones who perceive themselves to be in some kind of competition. If they don’t play the same as others, they will be the ones to lose.

And I am one of them, Monsieur, for too many times while doing vile things, I was thinking the system is to blame, because it is corrupt and vulnerable. And I am the one spitting in its face and pointing out by my actions how degraded it is. Then I would tell myself that I wouldn’t be doing such things, if everything was different.

That’s why it is absolutely insane, Monsieur, to expect that the ones going round the law will wake up one morning and quit or turn themselves in to the authorities. And, no, not the act in itself is crazy, but to expect from them to admit their culpability. The thing is, the ones who do such deeds, they don’t think of themselves as guilty. There are too few people who can live with their truth without being bothered. Most of them hide beneath stories they tell themselves and in which they believe blindly.

Someone who cheats the law maybe will agree that the method is wrong, but will be convinced of the fact that in the end it’s better that it was him and no other. And how can you contradict him? If it weren’t him, it would have been another, and indeed, it could have been worse. Look at him, he’s doing his job. Does it matter, after all, that he brought with himself his whole family if they are good working people?

As always, the solution is simple, but not easy. Let’s be honest, many of us won’t do anything to be more responsible, to conduct ourselves better and educate the ones in our social groups and proximity. It’s a lot of work, and sometimes it seems in vain, doesn’t it? We feel alone and disappointed anytime we think about becoming activists for any cause. Some of us quit even before starting.

And if we can’t count on ourselves, what else is left to do? H.G. Wells said it well: “We have to face the realities of human nature; we have to recognize that people will always find a way round a law if there is a way round. We have therefore to consider how we might cheat the good intentions of these provisions”. What is left for us, Monsieur, if we can’t even trust ourselves? To close our eyes and play as before, without admitting defeat. I turn against you, Monsieur, for you are to blame, and you must turn against me. The world has to burn to be born again. And everything will be as it always was. As it always is.