A “supposed parliamentarian”… and a suspended state

Listen to the article. The audio text is automated, generated by an automated system

A “supposed parliamentarian” whose name I am tired of mentioning recently came out to us to reassure us that his party is not challenging the state. To prove this, he declared that he did not recognize its decisions, objected to the control of his party's weapons, and advised its employees to pay attention to their future. It seems that the challenge, in his dictionary, only begins when the state asks the party for permission to stay, but it refuses to renew its residency.

The man, to be fair, is humble. He does not want to replace the state, nor to be an alternative to it. He only wants to decide on it, object to it, determine its powers, and choose the decisions that are worth implementing. As for the seal of the Republic, there is no objection to it remaining in its custody, in order to save printing expenses.

This is a very fair division: the party has the right to decide on war, and the state has the right to manage the displacement. He can transport weapons, and she can transport rubble. He has a declaration of steadfastness, and he has a search for funding. If she is late in paying bills, she is negligent. If she tries to interfere with the reasons for the bills, she is conspiring.

“Give us a state,” says the “supposed parliamentarian,” in the tone of someone waiting for an order whose delivery is delayed.

When the state tries to arrive, it is asked to stay at the door, because inside are weapons that it is not entitled to see, decisions that it is not permitted to review, and trucks that it is better not to bother searching. He wants a full-fledged state, except for sovereignty, which is an additional piece that he did not ask for.

Then he gives her an entrance exam. It must prove that it is a state before it can claim state rights. The examiner, of course, is the party. As for success, it has a simple condition: that the state proves its power by refraining from using it. If you apply the law, you will immediately fail on charges of implementing dictates.

How wonderful this logic is: when the state is unable, weapons become a necessity. When she tries to end her powerlessness, the weapon becomes a red line. What is required is to get up, but without standing; To rule, but without deciding; And to be a reference, provided that the reference is reviewed before issuing any decision.

As for the truck, he found an impeccable parliamentary defense for it: Do we fight with bags of potatoes?

No, of course. But we did not know that the alternative to potatoes was the abolition of customs, the judiciary, and the security services. We did not notice that the phrase “to the front” is valid for a registration plate, a traffic permit, a transportation license, and an exemption from questioning.

On this occasion, we suggest facilitating the procedures: every shipment whose owner declares that it belongs to the resistance will be granted diplomatic status, and every checkpoint that stops it will be referred for investigation on charges of obstructing steadfastness. This way we save time, and save the “supposed parliamentarian” the trouble of explaining the axioms at every celebration.

But the nicest part was the advice to employees not to tie their fate to the fate of authority. Fatherly, affectionate advice, with which you can almost hear the sound of a pat on the shoulder. The meaning is clear enough: Be careful, governments are leaving, and we know the names of those who have done their duty.

This is administrative reform in its armed version. Instead of asking the employee what the law stipulates, he asks who will be upset by its application. Instead of looking at the truck's papers, the officer looks at the horizon of the area. As for the judge, he must wait for the major settlement before setting the hearing date.

Because we are a country of institutions, a clause can be added to job applications: Can you perform your duty without disturbing the party? If the answer is yes, then you are flexible. If not, then you are a tool. If you insist on the law, you will most likely receive instructions via WhatsApp.

WhatsApp, by the way, is a dangerous culprit. It seems that the problem is not receiving instructions from abroad, but rather the type of application and the nationality of the sender. Some communications are custodial, some are coordination. Some messages are dictation, some are strategic insight. Sovereignty, in the end, is measured by the symbol of international communication with which the party is comfortable.

Then the “supposed parliamentarian” told us that the resistance represents more than half the country. He did not explain how he counted the people, but there is no need to check. Perhaps everyone who did not object was considered agreeable, everyone who objected was considered misguided, and everyone who was silent in fear was considered a supporter who just needed a little encouragement.

The sect, according to this accounting, is automatically added to the balance. There is no need to ask her children what they want. It is enough for the party to declare that its presence is their presence, so that the objection to its truck becomes an assault on their history, and the seizure of its weapons is an attempt to remove them from the civil registry.

What a great service: he monopolizes the representation of people, then he monopolizes the interpretation of their fear, then he demands that they thank him because he protects them from a fate that he does not even allow them to participate in deciding. As for those who really want the state, they need a long explanation to prove that they have not left their sect.

And of course, he does not forget to remind us of the wisdom that prevented the country from going elsewhere. We are grateful for this disclosure. We thought civil peace was a public right, but it was a deposit, and the party reserved the right to review its terms whenever a truck was confiscated or an employee woke up to his professional conscience.

However, citizens, especially those who lost their homes, deserve more than this drama. They have the right to protection, reconstruction, and accountability, and they have the right to ask who decides their fate. Their need for a roof to protect them should not be turned into an excuse to protect a weapon they have no say in using.

As for the state, it should stop waiting for a certificate of good behavior from those who object to its establishment. The employee who enforces the law deserves her protection, not her advice to be careful. An officer who seizes a shipment deserves to be supported, not left alone in front of preachers who explain to him that his future depends on his good judgment of their future.

In the end, the “supposed parliamentarian” is honest on one point: his party does not want to be an alternative to the state.

The alternative bears responsibility.

He prefers to keep the decision and leave the responsibility to others.

A state on demand, and a party above the reckoning. Then he asks, in all innocence: Where is the state? I also think you know who this “supposed parliamentarian” is?