THE DESCENT OF THE IDIOTS

I don’t think there’s a sane person out there who didn’t feel at least uncomfortable watching those little videos of Fidias interviewing wannabe candidates hoping to run with his Direct Democracy party in the upcoming parliamentary elections. Or those personal introductions that flooded the internet: one bloke in a bulletproof vest declaring himself ready for war, another with a shock of wild hair calling on people to join him in destroying the system, another promising to roll up to parliament in a tractor if elected, and another – convicted and sentenced to eight years for sexually abusing a minor – reckoning he’s got every right to sit in the new parliament because “look what the others achieved”. The same people who’ve been competing on social media for clicks are now competing for seats in parliament. And beneath in the comments, hundreds of citizens declaring themselves ready to punish the system. Without realising that the first people they’ll punish are themselves.

The existing system has been discredited, and rightly so. There’s extreme disillusionment, escalating revulsion, pent-up rage. Those called upon to serve the country have spent all this time looking utterly disconnected from reality. Through their actions and choices – in many cases – they’ve created the conviction that they represent themselves and isolated interests rather than the citizen. Few can claim, either, that the image of our parliament – its seriousness, its sense of responsibility, the standard of its political ethics – is anywhere near where it ought to be. Or that the absurdity – which some people suddenly remembered today – is Fidias’s monopoly, or that of his candidates. The traditional parties, in the name of pluralism, have chosen – and with the public’s help, elected – plenty of candidates over the years whose ridiculousness rivals anyone who’s turned up lately to prove this country is a bottomless pit. But can the answer to this incompetent and largely corrupt system really be the farce we’ve been watching lately? Can people actually be choosing to turn the country’s parliament into a circus to get revenge on the system? Without grasping that they’ll be the ones who bear the consequences of that choice first and foremost?

The next parliament, like every one before it, will be called upon to make decisions that will largely determine both the daily lives and the future of the country’s citizens. It’s accepted that today’s parliament cannot claim to have functioned effectively or responsibly throughout its entire term. But the “new” that aspires to replace the old doesn’t aim for either more effective or more responsible parliamentary function. It doesn’t talk about how it will solve problems, doesn’t fight for a fairer society. It simply prioritises punishing the existing system and some vague notion of change. With its only weapon being the mockery of political life – red noses, bulletproof vests, wigs. But how will this novelty actually function if it gets elected? Fidias has barely taken a position on any issue in the public sphere. What political proposal, what shared positions will unite the people elected as a group the day after the election so they can form part of the new establishment charged with producing policy? And as individuals, on what basis will these people operate? What political proposal, what political ideas will they serve after the election?

But most importantly, with what competence and what political understanding will they take on the responsibility of Legislative Power? To serve the common good, to improve people’s lives? With what warranties will they handle potential crises? The entire debate up to now has focused on how and whether direct democracy can function. On whether people have the necessary knowledge to make decisions on complex issues. But the question that should come first is whether the individuals who end up in parliament will themselves have the necessary knowledge or the intention to do the essential preparation for making important decisions. Because those who get chosen will generally have the same characteristics as the people who vote for them. The same people will be doing the choosing, after all.

The main argument being pushed is that those in parliament today have failed. So why not try something different? And it’s an argument that sounds reasonable. But can the failure of a system bring forth an alternative of this calibre? That is, can the argument be that since we’ve seen where mediocre to bad choices lead, we should now opt for even worse choices? Is there anyone who can claim that these armies of clowns preparing to get political will change parliament for the better the day after the election?

However tempting it may seem to punish a system that recycles promises and failures, however appealing “let’s try something different” may sound, this different, as it presents and promotes itself, cannot be an option. Quite simply because the only thing it promises is to punish the system and, by extension, the country.

Choices in any Democracy are always difficult. Especially in deficient Democracies like ours. The last thing this country needs today is to make those choices ridiculous as well.

This article was originally published on 07.12.2025

Source: THE DESCENT OF THE IDIOTS