A snack, a dangerous weapon

Wouldn't it be normal and human if you at least have a serious moral dilemma whether to accept a mandate that is practically impossible to prove that it legally and legitimately belongs to you?

5275 views 2 comment(s)
Disclaimer: The translations are mostly done through AI translator and might not be 100% accurate.

How to distinguish a thief from an honest servant? Here is a very simple attempt at an answer.

An honest man considers as his own only what he has honestly acquired, and a thief thinks that everything in his possession is his, regardless of how he got it. If, for example, he stole your TV and took it home, he will turn it on without hesitation and watch "The Cooperative", lamenting the demise of this society.

It is a matter of having or not having a moral compass. Or GPS, to be in line with the gadgets of the era.

Elections were recently held in Serbia, for which there is a number of credible evidence that they were - to a not insignificant extent - highly contaminated by various forms of election theft and manipulation.

Simply put: if there had been no electoral theft, the election results would have been different, and thus the mandate schedule.

No matter how vast the range of illegal and disgusting electoral tricks is, they have one thing in common, without exception: all of it was done in favor of the ruling party, with the aim of artificially fattening - thus: falsifying - its election result.

Not a single case has been documented that the opposition of any provenance robbed votes belonging to the SNS, that it registered its supporters at non-existent or at least addresses that did not belong to them, or that it drove them around Serbia to vote wherever they went.

Is that all right?

That's right, and no other way. Because, if it were at least a little different, we would have known everything about it a long time ago, all the Vučići, Vučićevići, Vučevići, Vulinčevići and Vučelići would have told us everything about it personally - if only they had something.

And they don't, because it's much easier to find Đilas those 619 million (which doesn't mean that he really has them, or that he stole them from someone) than it is for the opposition to find even a single dishonestly acquired vote.

Okay, but what are we going to do with it now? Imagine that you are a potential member of parliament from the list of the ruling party. What guarantees you that you have earned your mandate honestly, when it is clear that many who would share the benches with you tomorrow have smuggled themselves into the assembly without the real support of the voters?

So, wouldn't it be normal and human if you at least have a serious moral dilemma whether to accept a mandate that is practically impossible to prove that it legally and legitimately belongs to you?

And yet, not a single case is known of someone from that team hesitating and sweating, unable to sleep at night wondering what to do.

On the other hand, every mandate until the last one won by the opposition is clean, no one has seriously questioned it.

The only opposition mandates that are in doubt are those that, according to all we know, were fraudulently coddled or brutally robbed by the opposition. What is that supposed to say? That every opposition MP who finds himself in the Assembly will be exactly where he belongs.

So, is there any reason for future MPs of the opposition to have moral dilemmas about whether to accept mandates? There is none.

And yet, some of them and their political allies and like-minded people have serious moral reservations. Isn't there something terribly strange (and strangely terrible) about this upside-down moral order?

Of course, you know and I know that their moral problem is of a different nature: would accepting the mandate mean the legalization of election theft, the legalization of the falsified outcome of the election that resulted from it?

It is not a naive or insignificant dilemma. It could also be answered by rejecting the mandate, but first it should be more convincingly proven that the rejection of the mandate that you earned in the most honest way would not be a paradoxical/circumventive legalization of election theft, and that on a much wider scale?

It goes something like this: if you've already stolen my TV, feel free to use my fridge, stove, microwave, and nail clippers, so everyone can see even better what a thief you are.

But that is completely unnecessary, because a thief became a thief when he stole your television. Don't give him a snack, you might end up scratching his claws with it when he least expects it.


Bonus video:

(Opinions and views published in the "Columns" section are not necessarily the views of the "Vijesti" editorial office.)