The opposition's violent reactions, inside or outside the Assembly, serve more to promote government corruption than to fight against it.
Why? Because violence shifts the debate from responsibility to polarization. Polarization mobilizes the ugly partisan trenches.
In this terrain, corruption is not fought. It is relativized. Supporters of the government defend it, those of the opposition instrumentalize it. They stop listening to argument and logic, they move from fact to emotions.
The result is the same. The truth disappears into the fog.
I would understand this reaction if justice were silent, trapped, or incapable in the face of corruption. But today justice is acting.
With all its shortcomings, the justice reform has produced investigations, accusations, and trials that were unimaginable until yesterday. This makes political violence incomprehensible.
Why incite chaos and not wait for justice? Why hysterical flames and screams and not a calm, civil, persistent denunciation, based on the facts that justice has brought to the fore?
The answer comes from behavior, not from statements: The main problem of the flamethrowers and flamethrowers is not corruption, but profiting from it.
An opposition that would really deal with corruption would let justice do its job. This means that it would invest politically in everything, but not in violence.
This behavior gives the government the perfect excuse to shut down, victimize, and obfuscate accountability. In this sense, the opposition that chooses violence is playing the game of the government that claims to be fighting.
Whether they do it without realizing it or consciously, I can't say. But I can say what our eyes have seen for 30 or so years. One hand has washed the other, and both have washed the face.
On January 21st, people came out en masse for a corruption video. Similar to today's wiretapping, although not in numbers.
But then justice was lacking. The protest was precisely a substitute for justice. It was a reaction to absolute impunity.
Today the situation is fundamentally different. Despite all the problems, justice is working. There are investigations, security measures, ministers and senior officials under indictment.
We are no longer in a state where power is untouchable by the law.
This process of justice may be imperfect, but it is real. Obstructing it with violence serves precisely corruption.
There is something else that makes the contradiction even stronger. A large part of the opposition today is made up of former officials accused of or even implicated in corruption.
They don't like to hear it, but when they make that face on the screen, revolted against Rama's corruption, society doesn't see an alternative. It sees a conflict of interest between the two of them.
Therefore, denouncing them never mobilizes free citizens. Maxim puts shallow party militants in line.
It is clear that a clean and uninvolved opposition would have an interest in speaking calmly, waiting for justice, and in the meantime gaining public trust.
An opposition with former corrupt officials cannot expect justice. Justice is a danger for them too.
Even if they overthrow the government with their ridiculous violence, this will not be a victory over corruption, but the replacement of one injustice with another.
Violence doesn't actually bring down Rama. On the contrary, it raises him up when justice is bringing him down.
It becomes a tool to muddy the waters and relativize guilt. Above all, it is violence of the corrupt against corruption. So it does not clean the system.
Bring back the old.