Refusing every option is not a position

The residents of an old building in Sidi Gaber have been arguing about the lift for a year. It breaks down most months. Elderly neighbours on the upper floors stay in for days at a time.

Three options are on the table. Repair the old machine again, which is cheap and buys a few months. Replace the motor, which costs more and is split by floor. Replace the whole thing, which is the right answer and which nobody can quite afford at once.

Every time the residents gather on the landing, the same few voices reject all three. Too cheap to last. Too unfair to the ground floor. Too expensive. Each objection is reasonable on its own. Together they guarantee that nothing happens, and the lift breaks again.

The pattern is everywhere: families choosing a school, partners choosing a supplier, neighbours choosing almost anything. The options on offer are rarely ideal. Often none of them is appealing. And when a large group, or a few loud people, say no to all of them, everyone stays exactly where they were, which is usually the worst place of all.

Rejecting every option is allowed. But it carries a duty. Whoever says it owes the others a better plan, described clearly enough that they can choose it. Otherwise the refusal is not judgement. It is obstruction with good manners, and the cost lands on the neighbours on the sixth floor.

If there is no better plan, the responsible move is to support the option with the best chance of working, even one we dislike. Especially then.

Standing still feels neutral. It is a choice too, and usually the worst one available.