For many decades, citizens have been asked to strengthen institutions through social trust, even with the benefit of the doubt, so that the framework on which power is based in democracy can function and provide its results to a society that seeks, mainly, better living conditions based on its good operation.
However, many of them have not achieved that necessary identification with the majority of people and their actions seem distant, if not disconnected from the daily lives of citizens. In other cases, little is known about their performance and they contribute to the impression of being part of a device that consumes resources without justification.
This image is the entire responsibility of those who have belonged, and belong, to those public bodies. Trust is built from the institution towards the citizen, because they have the tools and resources to enjoy the credibility and legitimacy necessary to become part of the society they must serve.
It is not just an issue of popular support, but of the consolidation process that institutional maturity demands in an intelligent society. Trustworthy institutions, they are legitimate institutions and that is why we support them in any initiative they undertake; When that does not happen, then the public system falls into simulation and ends up eroding.
We always have the right to defend the institutions that we consider useful for the common benefit, it is only important to ensure that their performance and results confirm the relevance of that support, because then this defense is confused with that of group interests and not of the Majority of the population.
Building trust is an arduous process, takes time, and allows for few, if any, mistakes. Every institution that has managed to awaken trust in a society is an example of conduct, justice, frugality and professionalism. No one believes that an institution can be built in the blink of an eye, but almost all of us know that the strongest one can falter the moment the bond of trust is broken.
The debate about institutions, whether public or private, goes beyond their usefulness or their need to avoid major problems. It is not convenience, nor a choice of the lesser evil, but rather the social coincidence that there must be a structure that allows us to live together in harmony, with respect and under principles and values that give us the opportunity to evolve towards better stages of what we call civilization.
In this sense, discussing institutions is a social imperative within a democracy. Analyzing its relevance, discussing its areas of possible improvement and providing alternatives to its design to adapt it to other moments in our history, are practices of a citizenry that participates and gets involved.
Doing so does not damage any system or put at risk the democratic architecture of any society. For years we have been asked to believe in the functioning of many institutions until they themselves have taken it upon themselves to disillusion us or lose validity so that we can move forward.
Let us remember that an institution is also a form of leadership and a leader that no one follows, as the saying goes, is just a person taking a walk. An institution that has no legitimacy or social trust is an empty space that is filled with precisely what we reject as citizens when one loses its way and succumbs to vices and lack of objectives.
Today we are at a moment in which we can discuss the future of that institutional building that was built, at some levels, without the participation of the majority of the people. That is a historic opportunity that we must seize now so that we can continue to strengthen the institutions that have earned our trust, change those that have not, and improve those that are in the process of doing so.
More than at any other time, citizen dialogue is opening up about the system in which we live. It is very worthwhile for us to talk about it and reach agreements that allow us to build a solid structure, based on trust and general benefit.