The burden of choice by default

In all fairness we must thank our collective wisdom for bringing us to accept the outcome of the polls. Since 1968 our people have been mature enough to give our full support to the verdict of the polling stations: either keeping the previous leader and his team or seeking a new one to steer the country in some other direction, but we all accepted the outcome.
 Our consent however deserves to be re-examined periodically: the present circumstances where our country is now being driven by someone who was not voted for his present post. This poses the question of his legitimacy. Did our three crosses of December 2014 consent to this new direction? What about the opposition - for the worse or better, our system designates them by default, i.e., au pis-aller imposed in the form of the second-best electoral candidates failing to garner the majority of votes. In a democracy, it's our collective consent that gives legitimacy to the action of representatives. Should it not also apply to those who are entrusted to the job of counterbalancing the government in the legislative assembly?
 Else, the by-default opposition will have as only programme an eternal wait for their turn at the wheel, without any concern for where our country should be heading...
 
http://moriszindabad.blogspot.com/