Miquel Roca Junyent – 16/2/2021
Basically, everything has remained the same. The changes that have occurred should not be underestimated. New deals, but always within the same –or very similar– blocks. With different balances and more consistent leadership, the division persists. And this, so far, has not been successful. Abstention, for example, should not only be attributed to covid. But, in any case, the theme now is either repeat or change. This is the question.
When the blocks are conditioned by the extremes, they run the risk of giving them the leadership of the block. It would be good to avoid it, but there is only one way to do it: accept the costs of transversality. Accept two things: do not count on the extremes or take advantage of this resignation by one block to gain a majority position from the other block.
Establish bridges of understanding, flee from visceral exclusions …; this is the line of change
The politics of blocks, continuing it, is a scenario that is already known. And with a consequence that is also known: the blocking of politics. Today, one half against the other leads nowhere, is useless, is ineffective, and generates regression and decline. The two blocks must accept the strength and representation of the other, they must respect each other and be able to find coincidence scenarios that allow them to advance in their respective program, even if only partially. It can be difficult to accept, that’s for sure. But when the cause is pursued ignoring the divided and consolidated social reality, failure is written from the beginning. A single example to the contrary would challenge this claim. But, at this time, this example does not exist.
Transversality is synonymous with stable progress. For this reason, in the middle of the electoral campaign, all the leaders appeal to those who do not share their program, invoking that they too will be the recipients of their government action. That they will be taken into account. It’s true? If it were, the will to take them into account after the elections should also be valid, even if they have not obtained their vote. This is also called transversality. It could be badly governed for all ignoring what many want.
Transversality is difficult; it is simply an obligation. Democratic and patriotic. Democratic, to unite the society it is intended to serve. Patriotic, because only in this way is the country built. If the country does not include everyone, it crumbles, it weakens. In the end, populisms end up failing. They have done it in Hungary and Poland when they wanted to break Europe; They have done it in Britain when Johnson wanted to make Brexit a demagogic tool. And he has done it in Italy, when Salvini and the grillini have had to add to Draghi’s realism.
Now what? Well, centrality and transversality. Establish bridges of understanding, overcome the blocks, seek agreements, ignore the pressure of the extremes, flee from visceral exclusions. This is the line of change. No one has to discuss the legitimacy of the possible majorities, but it is evident that this same possibility also legitimizes the convenience of a change, the opportunity of new approaches, of new scenarios.
Repeat or change, this is the question. And ¬this cannot be solved quickly or hastily. Change happens through dialogue, speaking, proposing; do not shy away from understanding. And the further away the starting positions are, the more necessary it is to try. Ingrained and consistent leadership can make this possible. Throughout history there have been successful examples; and also the costs of those who have failed. You have to try. The choice between repeating or changing is complicated, certainly. But this is the question.
A great and relevant decision.