Between the Displaced and the Citizen… Who Saves Whom?

Amid successive crises, in a time where pain has become collective and suffering widespread, people’s voices rise—not seeking sympathy, but searching for missing justice. Has any political party ever asked about its own supporters? About the people who brought them to power? About those whose jobs have been disrupted, whose livelihoods have been cut off, and who suddenly found themselves pushed to the margins of concern?

There is no disagreement over helping the displaced—that is a moral and humanitarian duty beyond debate. But how can it be justified that the host citizen—the one who opens their home and heart—is left to face their fate alone? How are they expected to carry burdens beyond their capacity while receiving no support or even acknowledgment from those same parties?

The reality has turned into a harsh equation: a displaced person being exploited under the banner of aid, and a citizen being drained under the slogan of solidarity. In between, political parties stand absorbed in their calculations, preoccupied with their interests, managing crises as opportunities rather than responsibilities.

Where are the plans? Where is fairness in distribution? Where is the vision that balances the displaced person’s right to dignity with the citizen’s right to stability? Or is the goal to keep everyone in a state of need, so that power remains in the hands of those who know how to exploit crises?

What we are witnessing is not mere negligence, but a collapse in the very concept of responsibility. Political parties have lost touch with the people, replacing public service with networks of interests, becoming hollow structures—without spirit, without purpose.

If this approach continues, the post-war reality will not resemble what came before. People who have endured for so long will not forget. And the silenced street will one day rise again to ask: who stood with us, and who stood against us?