The events we are witnessing these days (and hours) seem to reinforce the sensation that we as a nation are prone to the disease of denying self-evident truths.

Maybe this is the consequence of so many centuries of believing in not so evident truths – who knows?

We may also call it the culture of denial – or rather keep denying and denying even when no one, but no one, still believes it.

It is about blank, wall-to-wall denial, without a shadow of doubt left, no room for compromises, no alternative between white and black.

In any circumstance, this is foolhardy, and ultimately self-defeating.

Readers will readily understand the context to our words. We have been given two examples of this self-defeating denial and one example of the correct way to tackle a crisis.

We are not talking here about what is written in any code of laws, or regulations but rather about what commonsense and prudence show is best.

In a crisis, it is always best to admit to what is clearly wrong and which, seeing what is going on in our world, will sooner or later be found out, rather than being found out by the media or by your adversaries.

Surprisingly, in an administration which knows all about spin, this stonewalling approach still survives and is still widely practiced. And it is mirrored also in enterprises which have nothing to do with the government except maybe that they at one point or other were allies.

Basically, however, beyond what works and what does not work, there is also a matter of principle. Everyone should be truthful in all one does, even about one’s mistakes. This principle holds for all, but especially in the public sector which should be a mirror to all the nation.

One must understand that the example set by government filters down to the rest of the nation and equally the bad example set at government levels filters down to the rest of the nation.

Stonewalling does not work. It never has and it never will.

In the interest of transparency, such practices should cease, wherever they are and whoever is doing it.

Besides, we ask who can correct any ill-practices committed by the government? Or, in other words, is there a counter-balance to the government in a system of checks and balances? The absence of checks and balances is deleterious to confidence in the State.

On the contrary, it is equally clear, even from what is happening these days, that anybody, public or in the private sector, trust and confidence grow proportionately when the body reacts in what people view as the best possible way to react in case of a crisis.

The way is clear, and that is how it should be. To deny it is foolhardy and self-defeating.