Unforced errors

In the world of sport, especially in tennis is often used the expression “unforced error”.

It is usual to find, when analyzing a game, the commentators consider that player commits more of them.

Forced errors are those in which a rival action forces another player to fail, for example a powerful stack or a well simulated steering change that prevents him from reaching accurately.

Instead, the unforced are the points that are lost in comfortable, predictable and usual situations in the game, in which failures are attributable exclusively to the competitor who commits them.

In such cases, the result depends more on the bad practice of the loser than on the skill, strategy and preparation of the opponent who won the point.

In these days, we observe that as in sport, in politics something similar happens.

The arrival of a new political force: the end of the old politics?

According to the polls, the majority parties before share their electoral flow with a new force.

An unprecedented force in public management, without national political apparatus, even if there are no local candidates in many jurisdictions.

However, everyone speaks of it and many citizens have committed their vote, at least in advance, in their support.

Engines that drive such exponential and dizzying growth, anger and lack of confidence in the suitability and morality of past proposals are clear.

Much of the citizenship has been tired of the experiences experienced with the suggestions of the other alternatives, distrusting the political apparatus that pursue their own interests more than those of their representatives and prefer to hand over power to someone unknown.

The old policy seems to focus its strategy exclusively on the old chorus of “most bad known as good for knowing”, something that could lose its validity in the next elections.

The results of past administrations were so thin that neither the fear of the unknown seems to support traditional proposals.

The “Frente of all” is no longer from anyone and in “Together for Change” seem to be more separated today and without changes to propose.

It became the practice exactly the opposite that its denomination proposes showing that its interests are, at least apparently, opposite to what they preach from its very misname. Something the new force summarizes as caste and positions.

Is that it?

Some of the most common reviews are:

Lack of structure for the exercise of power at national and much more regional level.

Some of the proposals mean radical changes that can greatly affect the sectors that have most adjusted during these years.

Still, there is a sense of fascination between voters.

From a philosophical perspective, fascination is something that attracts and lands at the same time, but always matters.

Traditional players tell in their history of having increased poverty, discouraged private investment and worsened security, health and education.

So unlikely were his works that a part of the electorate bet by the unknown, disruptive and unexpected, hoping that “hide new bar better”.

It seems that those who have the greatest experience are the ones who play the worst.

Perhaps the near future will allow to clarify whether the accumulation of errors was due to the difficulty that opponents and the environment presented or if effectively were by the mediocrity of players of the past who knew how to reap more unforced errors than winning points.