The Jagoes of democracy After the proclamation of the uprising, the strong revolution of yesterday's leaders (rulers, key word), and the candidacies announced in advance for the main leadership posts of the opposition, the activists expected — and were somewhat surprised — by the changes made to the proposed names, especially for chairman and secretary general. Certainly, as the protagonists of this “disappointment” themselves admitted publicly and aloud before the media, when this revolution, which had for a long time been gnawing at the body where the flies had long been feeding, later and through broader declarations they came out to justify these surprises as a need for renewal, but nothing was given to it that would make them even slightly believable. In the shaken and confused atmosphere created by everything that had happened, it seemed that many eyes and minds, used to little sovereignty and little freedom, were turning in search of half-sentences and indirect explanations, away from the media, or through euphemisms of the style “rise up,” “in the name of unity,” “putting an end to division,” “without much comment,” “in respect for Mr. ...” etc. Thus, from the cause that never came to light, they quickly and forcefully moved to its consequences, with all the filthy anger, hatred and calculations it carries and awakens in people: the rejection of the opponent. Not only the “theses” but also people were brought down with one blow, those who for 5 years had been the symbol of strength, unity, democratization, Europeanism, manliness and every virtue that the unbridled imagination of admirers could invent. At the forefront of this tragicomedy are the names of those who suffered the blow. For some of them, who once were the eye and ear of the first man, there is now an accusation of a coldness that no logic can take upon itself. But beyond the individuals who fall and rise, there is a more fundamental question: was this only an episode of the usual conflict within a party, or a heavier maneuver to lead the opposition down a dead-end road? In this sense, the latest event speaks not only about those who lost their places, but also about the way the places were won by others. Why all that haste, why that secret mobilization, why that organized silence before the decision broke out? Why did “big reasons” have to be used to justify the smaller human cuts? The answer, even when not spoken, is understood: in our politics the Jagoes of democracy still survive, those who with a language of reconciliation sow division, who with promises of unity produce fear, who with words of institutionalization restore the rule of clans. Therefore, this is not just a party episode. We are dealing with a political culture that sees the human being as a tool of the day and loyalty as a commodity to be bought. In such a culture, the fall of a name is not news; news is the way a name is brought down, the way a procedure is violated, the way a forum is distorted, the way people are forced to applaud where yesterday they swore the opposite. It is not known whether all this is the end of one stage or the beginning of another. But it is known that the opposition does not become stronger by killing its memory, nor by humiliating the figures it itself raised on a pedestal. A party that does not know how to respect contribution will very soon not know how to demand trust. And when trust fades away, the Jagoes of democracy take its place. [Note: large parts of the text are difficult to read in the image; the lines above represent only the most legible fragments and a minimal reconstruction of meaning. The full text cannot be fully verified from the image.]