To what extent can we consider that we live in a free society where one half of society fears being ruled by representatives of the other half? The logical thing is that they would “prefer” to be ruled by themselves, but feel intimidated by the other? Well, those unwanted feelings are what drives us throughout the entire campaign. The natural and inevitable thing is that the temperature of tension between the parties rises, the differences with the opponents are highlighted, and the advantages and disadvantages of the opponent are exaggerated to the point of exaggeration. But they were always campaigns in which strategies of seduction, not intimidation, prevailed. Today, what should be a day of celebration of democracy will become for the majority a day of torture, anxiety before the possible victory of the other.

What this refers to, and what I revolt against, is Little faith we have in our institutions. It is not in vain that they are designed to avoid any excess of the majority and are supposed to ensure that we have nothing to fear, and that our rights are secure. Fear, said Montesquieu, is characteristic of tyrannical governments, and now, following Spinoza, it is incompatible with freedom. This is why we cling to liberal democracy, to that delicate and complex mechanism responsible for controlling power. This is also why we always warn against the danger associated with the almost irrepressible tendency of parties to make themselves their own, or in opposition to the impulses of populism, whose ultimate aim is the removal of all obstacles to the action of the majority.

Except some isolated reference to cis, Have you heard any suggestion aimed at strengthening them, hinting at a call for consensus to mitigate the suspicion which tends to fall upon them? What has been brought up in us insistently and with moral overtones is that the opponent is “unqualified”. Be careful, not that he is worse or less qualified than us to judge, which is natural, but that he is not (morally) worthy to do so. This slogan from the old Madrid campaign “Freedom or Communism” or “Democracy or Fascism” echoed again – in an enormous variety of formulations. To what extent is a society free when the citizen is denied the possibility of choosing between real alternatives? In the rhetorical field, it is understandable.

I want to think that this intensification of the fear of the adversary we suffer is more than a rhetorical curtailment by the parties, and the cheapest source of mobilization and obtaining votes, than firm conviction; It was incited more than the fear of some of losing power or the fear of others of not reaching it. But along the way we were denied the possibility of comparing and analyzing programs. Above all, because behind every block there are two models of society that remain without contradiction. We’ve only gotten to his caricature; Each spoke of the adversary, of what awaits us if he judges more than himself. I am clear about which model I prefer, but it results from a rational conviction, not an emotional affiliation with an identity. That is why I prefer less slogans and a dance of feelings, and more discussions on individual topics, and not that fragrant one in which everything is discussed and nothing ends, and thenCandidates are scored for their ability to use rhetorical wrestlers; That is, for his ability to bind zascas. But I must be late. Happy Election Day.

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *