Today, the state pays out hefty subsidies to make possible and to finance projects in all artistic sectors. Never before has this country seen so many productions in the theatre, music and the visual arts being held while attracting to our shores foreign artists. Whether famous or less so, the latter help create a wider variety of artistic experiences, thereby enabling cultural renewal.  True not all initiatives have been a success or were valid, but it is in the order of things for successes to come assorted with failures.

An argument against subsidies is that they are dangerous because if they are cut, all that has been put together will just collapse and artistic activity will die out. There is some truth in this claim, as was shown during the Covid pandemic in Europe, when state aids to the arts were reduced and audiences disappeared.

The fact still is though that the arts have always been subsidised. In the past, aristocrats, high Church dignitaries and rich merchants would commission and employ all kinds of artists without any intention of making any pecuniary gain thereby.

***

SINGLE ISSUE

Evidently, the number of people participating directly in the activities of the political parties has declined. Less people seem to be interested in coming forward as volunteers to help organize political activities, to attend at local polical clubs or to serve as party officials.

Meanwhile, many more citizens, not least young people, have been involving themselves in voluntary work for societies and groupings that specialise in single issues -- like environmental or animal protection. Their commitment is far from being light touch; indeed it requires much time, effort and sacrifices.

So, what are the reasons that render political commitment, which in its best meaning refers to activism directed towards the improvement of all the society, become considered as less attractive than voluntary commitment to the cause of a single issue?

***

RUMOURS

Rumours have always been part and parcel of human life. At present, through the social media they can grow and multiply immeasurably. Versions of a given event and their rebuttal will, in just a moment, be circulating simultaneously among hundreds, thousands and more persons.

The same media provide the opportunity for the creation of further rumours, not least purposely pre-fabricated disinformation. During a political campaign, this could become a crucial sector. Who succeeds in promoting rumour campaigns that can penetrate electorates effectively will acquire a competitive advantage. The temptation to go for a negative (indeed false) campaign is surely  increasing in such circumstances.

I imagine that the temptation becomes even stronger when a campaign needs to reach a wide range of people. It appears that this has now become part of how US political campaigns are being run. But one hardly needs go as far. If for just one district in our national elections, it hardly makes sense to run rumours in this way, in a national election held with the whole country as a single dstrict -- as in elections to the European Parliament -- rumours fed by the electronic media could become quite effective.