The Coalition of Hope, or how do we regularly enjoy the discovery of hot water?

Periscop Look

How did we get down to minimum expectations from maximum expectations? And how quickly did this reduction occur? Three months ago, the second liberation of Kosovo, the end of the period of shopping, and the beginning of the era of hope and development.

What about today?

Three months later, we only hope to have a government. Whatever it is. We just hope we don't have budget collapses, parliamentary blockades and international isolation. Unbelievable, if that's how our electoral farce works.

Approximately, the chronology of reducing popular teen enthusiasm would look like the following:

On October 6th, we spoke and posted on the Biblical victory of Good over Evil;

On November 6th, we began to notice that the victory was relevant;

- December 6th, we began to admit that victory is threatened by Compromise;

On January 6th, we ended up understanding compromise as victory.

All of this evolution, from pre-medical to age-reducing to rationality, happened within three months. You would agree. Moreover, we would add that societies that at such speeds developed political thinking can be counted on the fingers. Three centuries, in just three months

But is that really so?

What did these emotional, popular extremes include, from collective enthusiasm to personal disappointment, in this local soap opera entitled The Coalation of Hope? Really, did we learn anything from the big difference between the policy that is really existing and what continues to live in the Rylindians ' verses and on Facebook postings?

We don't think so. Even away from her.

As with dozens of times before, even in this election cycle, the wandering ritual of local culture was repeated: the arsenal of impossible promises was used to exclude one social group from public ark control, and to accommodate another. And, as before, this process was completed with the old propagandistic curve: it began with dictatorships on reaching the impossible to reduce to today's origin for achieving a potential coalition. Three months ago, there were debates over new, progressive notions; today we quarrel about positions and people named and surnamed. The Sovereign Fund and the Development Bank were discussed yesterday, today the fate of the Interior Ministry and the number of deputy prime ministers were discussed.

Just like a dozen times ago, the slap we received from the faith in the impossible will force us to enjoy the possible. We rejoice that for many times we discovered hot water: that politics is complicated, that deals are difficult, and that social problems are deeper.

What's all this stupid ride that we're talking about as we bravely set ourselves on politics as an ethical and romantic national mission, which we've continued to be hostile to each other as we lashed out with empty phrases on ideological principles and we're going to end up acknowledging that we don't have anywhere to take each other and that we're probably condemned in cooperation with each other?

We think it's the opposite of the evolution of society's thinking and development.

So, it's about revolution. It's not like rejection, it's just like spinning. It's about the road that starts from the zero point and returns to it. It's about our miserable revolution as a society that moves through the circle driven by ignorance and inflexibleness. For the ability of collective folly to repeat over and over again, whenever it is helped by morality, simplicity, and generalization.

So, in the end, what do you think we're doing tomorrow?

As usual, we're going to go back to the old zero trade: we're going to start with complaints that there's no state here, that we need change, that we need somebody to come out; that we're going to keep believing there's hope and we're going to end up claiming that only choices are choices.

After all, it has revolutionary thinking.