French President Pompidou, de Gaulle's successor, used to say that there were three ways to go broke: gambling, women and the committee of the experts. Gambling was the fastest way (you can lose a lot of money in a few minutes); women, the most pleasurable, and the committee of the experts, the safest.

The Minister of Equality, Irene Montero, has returned to activity after having overcome the first fifteen days of quarantine, and has been quick to justify the celebration of 8-M: "We did at all times what the experts and the health authority said". And as the best defense is the attack, he then attacks the critics of the governmental management : "The right and the ultra-right are using the coronavirus crisis to try to attack feminism and women". In her opinion, "the level of viciousness, aggressiveness and hatred of the critics does not respond to scientific data" (in addition to ideological sectarianism, she reproaches the civil service examination for the lack of scientific expertise ). 

The complexity of modern societies, coupled with globalization, forces governments to surround themselves with experts: almost no politician is prepared to take on position of the technical implications of the management of his area. But the contribution of experts does not replace the political decision, nor does it exempt the ruler from his responsibility. Leading an institution or a society in good times is within the reach of anyone. The quality of leadership is test when circumstances become adverse. What is typical of politics is that there is no room for inhibition in a crisis: decisions must always be made, even in the most unfavorable conditions.

Faced with an emergency such as the one we are experiencing, the desirable starting point, both for individuals and for communities, is to accept reality, to become position of the status. Ignorance of the data or, worse still, denial of the existence of the problem leads to catastrophe. At this point, the experts are called upon to explain the origin and etiology of the problem and to outline the various possible scenarios. Science establishes relationships between causes and effects or, at least, correlations between variables. In its light, it allows us to evaluate the consequences of various possible courses of action. At this point, it is time for the politician to make a decision. He cannot hide behind expert opinion, which will almost never be unanimous: faced with complex problems, there will be a diversity of diagnoses and treatment proposals. The prudent ruler will form a judgment - prior to discussion at the appropriate place, if necessary - and will use the resources of the executive to implement it. If he is at least manager, he will know how to justify his decision and to face the consequences of his policy. If it is calamitous, he will be dismissed or will have to resign: "he who makes it, pays for it", basic democratic wisdom.

The authorities - of any subject- are not infallible. No one expects them to be, except the small child who trusts in the omniscience and omnipotence of his parents. Showing one's ignorance does not have to undermine authority: the teacher who does not know how to answer a student and tells him that he will answer at the next class, once he is report, sees his prestige increased. We distrust leaders with alpha male airs, infallible and invulnerable, with no apparent weaknesses. They become distant, like beings from another planet, without empathy. Incapable of arousing adhesion, they impose themselves through fear ("whoever moves does not get in the picture"). On the contrary, the truly human ruler knows himself and sample himself to be fragile, has no qualms about accepting his mistakes and is willing to rectify them. If his submission and dedication are patent, his subjects forgive him these limitations.

Our rulers have not obtained good grade in the management of the crisis, at least so far (the fact that other countries are the same or worse is a sad consolation). Almost more than the mistakes made, we are dismayed by their inability to recognize them, sometimes with childish excuses. Of course, not even Irene Montero can completely deny a blatant reality and admits that "when this crisis passes and we can sit down calmly, we will have to see what decisions should have been taken differently". It is a good start, but not enough.

The poor performance of politicians challenges citizens: we must roll up our sleeves and get to work without waiting for the government to solve our problems. Crises also test ordinary people, and fortunately many anonymous people respond with a generosity that reaches heroism. We would love to support competent and exemplary leaders, but in their absence, civil society, which is not an abstract entity, but the sum of each one of us, must mobilize.