Politicians more easily evade accountability when three factors coincide: highly fanatical bases, weak institutions, and control of the public narrative. The blind defense of decisions by the Executive, the Legislative, or political parties and figures pushes us towards the weakening of the nation's institutional framework. It seems our history of facing fanaticism and blindness towards political figures who regress into more of the same is ignored each time we decide to leave the solutions to our problems—even those concerning our culture, identity, and values—in the hands of politicians. It is necessary to learn to differentiate between loyalties and the blindness that accompanies the disdain of citizens in matters of domestic politics. Although in politics there are never empty chairs, good political prospects prefer to stay away from it, given that the election results, time and again, seem to favor candidates who best know how to buy the conscience and dignity of citizens. In fact, it is common to observe how people who demonize one wing of the political spectrum then applaud and support candidates who, evidently, contradict their supposed ideals. This inability to question one's own ideals and to automatically justify errors and facts that represent a continuity in the deterioration of democracy reflects the absence of critical thinking, which, in the long run, deprives political debate of substance and deteriorates the quality of political exercise. Implicitly, democracy requires rational disagreements, not emotional unanimity from people who, even knowing what is the right thing to do, decide to be accomplices to the usual. A vote based on identity, and not on results or proposals, is nothing more than selfishly directing the right to vote, which must be accompanied by the civic duty to contribute to the improvement of the Republic. So, is the problem the political class or the morality of the voter? At the most critical moments of our Republic, the traditions of personalism, caudillismo, and unfounded partisanship hinder any attempt by organized citizens to launch movements and initiatives aimed at reversing the damage caused by years of inefficiency, instability, and corruption. Within this context, and with nothing more important than the Republic itself in the most political sense of the word, the deterioration of public debate and the disenchantment of good candidates with public life make it impossible to achieve minimum consensus for public policies, increasing the radicalization of populist ideas and polarization among citizens. In Panama, it seems that the electorate's fanaticism emerges more from loyalties than from political ideologies. In practice, these types of scenarios do not mean that these politicians were elected by a qualified majority, but by a majority that was for sale. However, this problem goes beyond the superficial or simple socio-political gears, since active political participation has never really been based in our democracy. The active political participation of citizens in the democratic order is the healthiest state of citizen involvement; subsequently, we have partisan loyalties, which correspond to a normal phenomenon in a democracy; and finally, political fanaticism, that is, when citizenship loses critical judgment towards the figures that define and shape the political exercise. Fanaticism distorts elections, but also erodes institutionalism and corrodes public decisions. This does not reflect a society historically polarized by ideologies, but a clientelistic country, with pragmatic—or even utilitarian—traits in the way of addressing social problems. In a Republic where there are no deep conflicts of ideas, but a superficial political tribalism, the final link in the social community is the degradation of ethical judgment, which justifies the idealized and selective tolerance, and where the citizen ceases to be an evaluator to become just another follower. Even if such votes result in the election of mediocre and incapable candidates, the fanatic will applaud each of their actions, even if they lead them to the precipice. This problem is defined as the extreme, irrational, and intolerant adherence to an ideology, a leader, or a party, which leads the citizen to be unable to accept opposing opinions and to defend blindly and dogmatically, ignoring evidence or reducing social complexities to a simplistic "good vs. evil" way of thinking. It is well said that history repeats itself: first as tragedy, then as farce. This would be material for a next piece, but it is worth closing with a warning: one brave person on your side would be enough to save the fatherland, just as a couple of cowards on our side would be enough to condemn it. The author is an internationalist.
