Upstart) is what is more convenient: to adapt and survive by renouncing the truth today, to fight for it tomorrow as far as possible, or to defend it and die immediately (in a political sense) because of him? What is more politically effective, to navigate discreetly now in the hope of eventually building a political position that will allow one to fight for the truth in the future with some success, or to immediately consume oneself in a gesture, sincere, but useless? Depends . What does it depend on? It depends on the maturity of the organization, on the one hand, and on the personal vocation, on the other. If the organization is small and dominated by the founder, the chances of internal resistance are very slim. The founders are not usually stupid and will adopt the necessary political and statutory measures to nip in the bud any attempt to build an internal current or autonomous poles of power, even if the price paid in the medium term is self-destruction. But if the organization already has an important dimension, this is much more difficult.
In an organization of a certain size, resistance is generated in addition, and the always cyclical leader knows that his mission is to manage them intelligently and not try to undermine them. Any overacting runs the risk of fueling what you want to co Latvia WhatsApp Number List mbat. Consequently, the honest politician who wants to fight for the truth, the first thing he must do is evaluate what type of organization he is in. If it is the first type (dominated by the founder) it is advisable to immolate yourself immediately, because useless effort only leads to melancholy. However, one must be very convinced of both this condition and the irrevocability of the path decided by the leader, because any resignation does nothing other than fuel the drift of the leadership in the face of increasingly weaker resistance, and become thus in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
But even in the case of an organization with a certain structure capable of generating resistance, the opposite option of resisting by adapting to the environment is not always preferable either, since ultimately it also depends on the vocation of the subject in question. In the parties, especially the new ones, there are people with a political vocation and others who have a vocation for public service, but not strictly political. A commitment can be required from the latter, without a doubt, but always within the limits of reasonableness and coherence with the project. Faced with them, the vocational politician who wants to turn politics into his profession must assume that he arrives at the party crying from home. He is going to have to swallow a lot of things (that is, often compromise with the truth) and it is logical that this should be the case. He is in a long-distance race, which he can win or lose, but he likes the race.