In the wake of the recent London attack a video went viral on facebook. It showed a group of people fleeing the scene where they had previously been enjoying a pint of beer. One of the men in the group was still holding on to his £5.50 glass of beer and seemed to be walking at a fast pace rather than running for his life. Above all he wanted to protect his purchase and he probably sensed that life would go on.
The world we have come to learn to live in is one of danger, risk, bad people and horrible episodes perpetrated by monsters with no regard for humanity. In spite of that awareness, we still continue on with our day to day life and take our chances on travelling to places where the risk is high and go to packed concerts where we know the potential for getting killed is there but where the entertainment value is so high that no threat will change our mind.
Entertainment, good living, some extra cash for the weekend and living for today are popular motivators nowadays. Sometime we figure that if the risk is high and we may die from a falling tree or crossing the road anyway, then attackers that are eliminated within 8 minutes are a calculated risk worth taking for the joy of having a pint with friends.
People have to put many ugly episodes and behaviour that appals away from their mind and get on with the job of living. Many parents feel worried and concerned whilst sending their children or spouse off to another country for study or work. We live in an inter-connected world, a globalised world and confining ourselves to safety only is too limiting and may inhibit our progress.
The value attached to our way of life has now increased. So much so, that even when under attack by killers we hold on to our pint and hedge our bets on the safest route.
Our local population, although not as keenly under threat as in other places, is part of the globalised world where what affects one country can easily affect another and in addition, historical and economic events also contribute to shaping our sensitivities, our defences and our choices.
We come therefore to the point where despite an environment of bad governance, clear cases of corruption and mal-administration, failing institutions and false security, an offer that focuses on our personal interest and of relative good value, will easily charm us and draw our vote.
Charm comes easily to those with charisma. Charisma comes easily to those without battle or challenge. Those who are protected by others, those who hide behind their mother's skirts. Even Pablo Escobar, the notorious Colombian drug trafficker had charm and was protected by his mother who stole a pair of shoes for him when he was laughed at, when a little school boy. He even charmed (and paid) his way into being elected to parliament. None of that saved him when hounded by the American and Colombian police, who, in spite of years and years of trying to bring him to justice, failed over and over again but never gave up.
He believed himself to be a saviour of the people, giving them work and building better villages for them. He was surrounded by henchmen and had bribed nearly the whole police force to turn their head the other way.
Charisma comes cheap to those who do not have to account for their behaviour. In itself it becomes like a drug, an addiction and hard to maintain. Many are taken by the manner and style of the charismatic person and are convinced that they have made the right choice by listening to him and forsaking small sacrifice and moral values.
Against the charmer, those who preach honesty, good moral and clear standards are perceived as negative. If you are to continue to accept the charmer's offers, then you must distance yourself from any other contradictory voices and run with the crowd, whilst holding on tight to your cup so that it may be filled and re-filled.
Terrorists are charismatic. Con-men are charismatic and narcissistic persons also appear charming to others.
In its honest form, when it comes from the heart and strong character, charisma is something good and worthy to have. It will certainly help you in life and promote a sense of well- being. Many are envious of those who possess it and others seek to imitate it.
The truth is, however, that unless you come out into the open, doing away with the protection of those who cover for your less appealing characteristics and face people honestly and admit who you really are, then the fact remains that you may be living a lie. You know it deep down but you don't have the courage to admit to your reality and to begin to take the steps to make amends. Blaming others becomes second nature as does lying.
Those who are drawn to align themselves may thrive for a while and feel satisfied and secure that they have a clear protector when trouble may emerge in their lives.
There is certain risk, though, in building your house on sand, in trusting in luck and good weather.
In the same London attack, a young Spanish man was himself killed whilst trying to save another person who was under attack. Aged 39 and from Madrid, Ignacio Echevarría had been working for HSBC in London as part of the bank's team fighting money laundering. It seems he had a very highly developed sense of justice, honesty and bravery. He will receive an honour from his country and the Spanish Prime Minister had recommended that he be awarded posthumously an order of civil merit.
Ignacio Echevarría acted alone. He was a hero and will not be forgotten. When a stranger needed help he reached out selflessly and gave his life.
Some hold on to a pint and they are not wrong to do so. Another rushes instinctively to save a life.
Both of these choices exist side-by-side. We are free to make our own choices. It is worth knowing, though, what our true motivation is in making that choice and how well it may serve us in our life, our reputation and where we are heading as citizens of the free world. The pint of beer is the purchase we wish to protect. The other is life itself, protected by an extraordinary human being.
As the second legislature of Joseph Muscat's government begins, the charm has remained intact for him. He says that his experience will serve him to do a better job. Whether he has the courage to do that job alone, without help from the state television, the machinations of the party, the Commissioner of Police and the top-most state institutions remains to be seen, though nothing indicates that he aims to prove himself worthy of the job. Statements about going to the EU Pana committee only after the magistrate's enquiry is concluded, point to the confidence that he has in a favourable outcome. Most certainly, not the words of one who has the courage to face attack on his own merit. As such, Act Two.