Like everything in life, the quality of aging leadership is measured not by those who criticize it, but by those who irrationally defend it. And it is the latter that define and highlight, not others, the path of moral bankruptcy. This has been a constant, which is accentuated to the extent that the deterioration makes a dent in the sense of balance, from which contact with reality is lost and they are unable to differentiate between light and dark and the step of time, believing itself to be above all public interest.
When this situation occurs in those cases in which there were once expectations in the population, popular sentiment reaches a confused mixture of compassion and bewilderment. This causes the adherence to be expressed in shouts; noises that hurt the ears and fill media environments with stupor, because it is from that moment on that spaces for moderation and good sense migrate. It is the phase in which you can no longer go back or recover lost times and public appreciation vanishes forever.
There are countless times that we have suffered as a nation this phenomenon that shows us, stripped of disguise, the real face of those who cast aside the respectful debate of ideas for the diatribe, convinced that excessive praise, almost always mocking, and not independent criticism, it is the path that leads to immortality, as if that path existed in the field in which the defenders operate. It is then that it is forgotten that constructive criticism is the most effective antidote against unbridled ambition and moral decline. The good defense of a leadership obsessed with a comeback requires not only neat handling of arguments, but also respect for those who do not share their ideas. A very scarce feeling in those coastlines that contribute nothing constructive to the national debate.
The entrance Saturday reflection on power was first published in The Caribbean Newspaper.
