Four years have passed since the emergency declared for the covid crisis. The phrase that keeps returning in public discourse is not a single moment but a lasting ache. The worst of the pandemic was never confined to the days of lockdown and fear. It was every minute that claimed someone dear, every quiet loss that left a hollow in a family, and every time a community’s moral compass seemed weighed down by profit-seeking amid collective suffering.
We entered the post-pandemic era with a swagger about how strong the recovery would be. Yet soon a cadre of opportunists, orbiting political life, began to surface. We recalled familiar names from the era of influence and scandal and watched as new cases emerged. The pattern repeated itself: contracts, commissions, and inflated prices tied to decisions that touched the lives of ordinary people. Some transactions may be legal, but they fail the ethical test in a society that deserves accountability.
The public response moved quickly to scrutinize the circle around a political leader, alleging a bridge role in the procurement of protective gear and in subsequent efforts to avoid taxes. The speed of revelation sharpened the sense that a culture of misprision can creep into governance when urgency fades and routine power reconstitutes itself as a playground for those who benefit from ambiguity.
It is tempting to wonder why these disclosures arrive at a particular political moment, and to what extent there may be undisclosed material waiting for a convenient political wind. On one side, the spouse of a prominent leader appears as a hinge for some observers. On the other, a partner tied to the leadership of a major city faces personal questions that some insist do not touch the broader office. The dynamic mirrors a broader truth: in every political divide, the rhetoric of one side and the counterclaims of the other collide, and the public reputation of institutions bears the bruising of constant partisan battles. The deeper concern is the stench left on a system that has weathered multiple crises, including corruption scandals, and its ongoing struggle to address the real problems facing young people. In many surveys and elections, there is a revealing lack of emotional investment in democracy among the younger cohorts.
A recent FEPS Europe survey shows that a quarter of citizens aged 18 to 35 say democracy is not always preferable. This is the segment where dissatisfaction with the system runs deepest, far ahead of other age groups. It raises questions about why populist and radical voices gain traction across countries now, from Spain to Portugal. What are we teaching if not the lesson that the worst of each household is the shared misery of a system that fails to protect the vulnerable? It is not a call to hide the truth or to pretend the dirt under the rug does not exist, but it is a plea to address it with steadier, more inclusive leadership and less partisan noise. A healthy democracy deserves this sober approach.
In closing, the political climate is a living thing, and so too is the confidence citizens place in their institutions. It is a reminder that the best way forward is not to pretend that governance happens in a vacuum. When the parliamentary balance wobbles or a government struggles to maintain a stable dialogue with regional leaders, the need for constructive engagement becomes even more urgent. Institutions must weigh more than party interests and should be capable of setting aside personal agendas for the common good. Only then can a democracy recover its credibility and connect with the people it serves, especially the younger generations who will carry the country forward. This is not a plea for perfect governance, but a demand for accountability, transparency, and a recommitment to democratic norms that endure beyond the news cycle.
Endnote. It has become clear over time that protocol matters. When the regional government fractures parliamentary stability, it underscores how essential it is for leaders to meet, confer, and align on shared priorities. A healthy democracy rests on the willingness of public officials to engage across borders, not retreat into isolated positions. The goal remains straightforward: ensure institutions have the weight of responsibility on their side, rather than the weight of partisan advantage. This is the work of democracy, and it begins with deliberate, open, and honest governance.