They were deaf to disaffection, blind to the alternative ideas it gave rise to, blandly impervious to challenge, unconcerned by the dismay at their misconduct and the rising wrath at their misgovernment, fixed in refusal to change, almost stupidly stubborn in maintaining a corrupt existing system. They could not change it because they were part of it, grew out of it, depended on it.
The passage highlights the entrenched nature of leadership that is resistant to criticism and new ideas. The leaders mentioned are characterized as oblivious to the discontent surrounding them and impervious to the challenges posed by their governance. Their inability to recognize the negative feelings of the populace reflects a deep disconnection from reality, leading to a failure to adapt or reform. This stubbornness is portrayed as a significant flaw, suggesting that their commitment to maintaining the status quo ultimately hinders progress and change.
Furthermore, their inability to alter the corrupt system stems from their integral role within it. They are not just isolated figures but are deeply interwoven with the very structures they represent. This dependency creates a cycle of complacency that fosters a resistance to change. As a result, a lack of responsiveness to the evident issues contributes to their downfall, as both their position and perceptibility become reliant on the stability of the existing order, despite its evident flaws.
