There are some sayings in politics that sound good, evoke tradition and appeal to social memory. “No one is excluded” is one of them. Tolerance, inclusiveness and invitation... They are all hidden in this sentence. Beautiful, meaningful, even necessary.
But if it is only a question of welcoming the incoming, what to do with the outgoing is just as important.
Today, we are faced with an interesting picture: Doors are kept wide open, “Come back no matter what” is loudly proclaimed, but at the same time, people who have devoted years, even a lifetime, to the organization can be wiped out with a pen. Expulsions, suspensions, silent purges...
Is there not a serious contradiction here?
Does tolerance only apply to outsiders?
Is loyalty the fate of the one who stays inside?
It is not only the newcomers that keep an institution standing. The real backbone is formed by the people who carry the structure, bear the burden and pay the price over the years. If that backbone is weakened, external reinforcements will only serve as a temporary dressing.
This is exactly what it looks like.
Imagine a medicine cabinet... You put a new bandage in it, but you throw away syringes, tinctures, bandages. In other words, you destroy the essential elements of treatment and settle for a superficial solution. This is not a strategy, but an illusion.
Politics is like that.
If one is coming, it is more important how many are going.
If a structure is constantly losing blood, it cannot survive on external support. An IV drip is not the solution; you must first find the cause of the bleeding and stop it. Otherwise, every intervention only prolongs the process but does not change the outcome.
So where is the problem here?
The problem is the denial of mathematics.
Politics is as much about numbers as it is about emotions. The balance of incoming and outgoing, the increase in membership, the vitality of the organization... These are all measured by concrete data. If it is “one in, one thousand out”, this is not a success story, but a clear meltdown.
Let's liken it to a business enterprise.
If you are not gaining customers in your own shop, if you are losing existing customers, and if you ignore this, bankruptcy is inevitable. Being a big chain market may hide your mistakes for a while, but it does not eliminate them. At some point, the shelves will empty, the cash register will stop working and the size of the signboard will not save anyone.
It is no different in politics.
If an organization with a deep-rooted history is unable to grow or even maintain its current audience, there is a serious management problem. Especially when younger, newer competitors are growing rapidly, this decline becomes even more noticeable.
Another issue is the loss of a sense of direction.
The metaphor of “two steps forward and one step back”, which used to be used for the Mehter, actually describes progress. A step back is preparation for a step forward. But today the picture seems to be reversed: two steps back, one step forward...
This is not the way forward.
This is not the way to make progress.
Time passes, energy is spent, but the destination remains the same.
But as our elders said: “What goes around comes around.”
Here, despite the damage that has been done, the same path continues to be followed.
Why?
Nothing will change until this question is answered.
Politics does not tolerate stubbornness. Especially at a time when voter behavior is changing so rapidly, insisting on the wrong thing will only narrow the existing base. Shrinking the space you have while your rivals are opening up new areas is not strategy, it is retreat.
And perhaps the most critical question is this:
How can you grow support by alienating, excluding, sending people away?
Relations with yesterday's opponent can change today's balances; this is the nature of politics. However, it is difficult for a structure that loses people within itself to build trust outside. Because trust starts from within.
Today, the picture is at times comical, often dramatic, and in some ways even tragic.
But it's not too late.
It is possible to turn back sooner rather than later.
As long as the mistake is recognized.
As long as the issue is seen as a matter of principle and reason, not of individuals.
Otherwise
Even if the doors remain open, there may be no one to get in.