ALL AGAINST THE OPPOSITION

2025-12-15 13:35:00, Opinione Meri Lika

I have never been against the opposition. This is not a defensive sentence said according to the circumstances, but a continuous stance, formed over the years and proven by time.

In a functioning democracy, the opposition is not the enemy, but a necessary pillar of political balance, a critical voice that keeps power in check and the hope of rotation. For this reason, any weakening of the opposition is not a victory for anyone, but a loss for society.

However, after the signatures for the Ombudsman, the opposition is on its worst day. Not because it lost a procedural battle, but because it missed a moral and political opportunity to show that it is different, that it knows how to act with responsibility and institutional maturity. The signatures were not simply a parliamentary act; they were a test of character for the opposition, and, unfortunately, it failed.

The Ombudsman is an institution that should be above the parties, a figure who protects the citizen from the abuse of power, regardless of who governs. In such cases, the opposition has the obligation to show that the public interest is more important than narrow political calculations. Instead, it closed itself in an exclusionary logic, seeing the process not as an opportunity for consensus, but as another front in the political battle.

The greatest irony is that today it seems as if “everyone is against the opposition,” but the truth is even more bitter: the opposition is against itself. When it refuses to take responsibility, when it does not know how to distinguish between healthy compromise and surrender, it isolates itself. And political isolation does not come from attacks by opponents, but from the inability to build trust, both within and without itself.

I was not against the opposition, but I was and am against a self-destructive opposition. Against an opposition that sees every institutional act as betrayal, every different opinion as an enemy, and every failure as someone else's fault. This approach does not strengthen the opposition; it empties it of content and distances it from citizens who expect alternatives, not excuses.

With the Ombudsman, the opposition lost another essential element: moral superiority. What should have been a moment of reflection and maturity turned into a display of confusion and lack of direction. Citizens do not expect the opposition to win every battle, but they expect it to show that it knows why it is fighting and what it stands for.
Today, these questions remain unanswered.

The opposition's biggest problem is not that it lost a vote, but that it lost its narrative. When you fail to explain yourself clearly, when your message is unclear and contradictory, you pave the way for others to write your story. And the story being written today is that of a weak, fragmented, and unable to lead opposition.

If the opposition wants to get out of its worst day, it must start with a simple but difficult act: honest self-criticism. Not to find new culprits, but to understand where it went wrong and why. Democracy needs a strong, responsible and visionary opposition; therefore, the opposition also has obligations that it must fulfill.

First, the opposition must stop living with the victim alibi. Being constantly on the defensive, blaming the opponent, the system, or circumstances, does not build trust. Citizens do not seek excuses, but responsibility. A credible opposition admits its mistakes, analyzes them publicly, and shows that it has learned its lessons.

Secondly, the opposition must establish a clear dividing line between political battle and institutional interest. Not every compromise is betrayal and not every cooperation is surrender. In cases such as the election of the Ombudsman or independent institutions, the opposition must be an example of prudence and seriousness, showing that it knows how to put the interests of citizens above those of the party.

Third, the opposition must have a clear and articulated vision. Being against the government is not enough. Citizens want to know: what else does the opposition offer? What is its plan for the economy, justice, health, and education? Without a clear and credible program, the opposition remains simply a voice of protest, not a governing alternative.

Another essential element is unity. A divided opposition does not inspire trust. Internal debate is healthy, but when it turns into open conflict, the message conveyed to the public is one of weakness and lack of direction.

The opposition must learn to manage its differences without turning them into a self-destructive public spectacle.

Equally important is political language. Harsh, ultimatum-like, and exclusionary rhetoric may mobilize a militant core, but alienates the silent majority. A credible opposition speaks to citizens, not just its supporters, and uses arguments, not just accusations.

Ultimately, the opposition must restore real connection with the citizen. Not through sporadic statements or rare protests, but through constant presence, listening, and representing the real problems of the people. Trust is not built in conference rooms, but on the ground, where citizens feel whether someone truly represents them or is simply using them as rhetoric.

An opposition can only emerge from a crisis of confidence by changing its approach, showing political maturity, and building a real alternative. Otherwise, the problem will not be that “everyone is against the opposition,” but that fewer and fewer people will believe that it is on their side.

Until then, it is not true that everyone is against the opposition. The truth is that the opposition has not yet decided to be fully on its own side and on the side of the citizens it claims to represent. /CNA