And so the woes of a certain fringe party continue. Is it a putsch? Isn't it? Where does democratic legitimacy enter into the equation, particularly given ideological attitudes to democracy.
And yet all this raises for me the question as to why anyone would want to be a part of a political ideology and formation attached that reifies leadership so absurdly. As leader how could you trust those around you not to want to be leader? And about that latter crew. How do they stand being effectively flunkies? Everyone wants to be at the top of the structure, don't they?
Or what does it say about those who involve themselves and don't want to be. In other words as a recipe for permanent infighting and instability you couldn't do better. And the amount of energy expended in this sort of fratricidal (at its kindest) conflict is incredible. Sure, you could hope you'd get a leader with such charismatic qualities - I won't name names, that all that could be avoided - but firstly finding such a leader is, thankfully, something that appears vanishingly rare on the far-right, and secondly it merely pushes the internecine conflict a rung or two down. Any history of, well, I won't name the historical period, but you know what I'm getting at, demonstrates that the sheer energy that was devoted into position during an actual shooting war, no less, all but consumed those involved. It's no way to run a railroad, let alone a society. Or a party.
No comments:
Post a Comment