The Covid 19 pandemic has reached a stage at which people have become increasingly wearied by its effects, while at the same time increasingly coming to the realization that it is more serious than they had previously believed. The weariness is underscored by how social and personal restrictions have become too much of a social and personal burden for many, even as economic concerns have multiplied.
This is generating a sense of fear which must be contested. It is never a good idea to allow pessimistic feelings to spread too far in society.
Still pessimism cannot be countered by encouraging a false sense of confidence... as for instance does President Trump. Such an approach triggers a lack of caution in the ways by which citizens behave and observe sanitary regulations. Also, if such optimism is based on exagerrated expectations (such as that an anti-Covid vaccine will become available shortly) and these get disappointed, chances are that feelings of disquiet will grow much more.
Excessive optimism can be as harmful as a state of fear.
***
THE AMERICAN ELECTIONS
More than the previous one, the ongoing American presidential elections have turned into a confrontational show between “modern” populism and the political traditionalism practised in the conduct of political affairs since the end of World War II. If Covid 19 weren’t around, the confrontation would likely have been sharper still.
On the one hand, we had a black and white presentation of the world we live in, though what might have been white yesterday, could have turned black by today. Factual correctness has had limited importance so long as what was being declared could be understood as a strong statement which quickly showed how problems can be solved fast. No matter then that what was the right solution this morning, could by tonight be considered as a huge mistake by the same speaker.
On the other hand, we had the attitude of one who believes that the best way forward goes through the middle – which you reach through compromise and the exercise of common sense. The problem here is one also needs to do so in partnership with various strata of the society which will lead one towards compromises that are valid, true, but which a substantial segment of the people will fail to comprehend.
***
POLARISED OR IN COALITION?
Maltese politics were and have remained deeply polarised (as obviously on a vaster scale has been the case for the UK and the US). Frequently, the argument is made that if over the years we had shifted away from a two party system, we could then have followed European models of political governance, based on coalitions.
But do we really know which political structure promotes the best governance? The claim is that with coalitions, extreme decisions are avoided, while the abuses resulting from agressive political partronage and corruption can be contained better.
Really? Since the Democrazia Cristiana lost its dominance of Italian politics, it does not seem like clientelism and corruption have declined so much.
Above all, which political structure is in better shape to deliver effective and timely decision-naking?