The author discusses the importance of maintaining decorum and institutional courtesy in political debates, as a lack of these can be detrimental to democracy. However, they also warn against an excess of acquiescence, as this can lead to totalitarianism. They argue that it is preferable to have a bit of conflict and bad taste in debates than for dissenting voices to be silenced out of fear of being labeled troublemakers.
They quote Salman Rushdie, who emphasizes the value of freedom of discussion and disagreement, stating that a free society is turbulent rather than placid. Rushdie’s own experiences of being denigrated and harassed have reinforced his belief in the importance of allowing others to insult him as a part of free expression. The author asserts that democracy is not about achieving consensus, but about managing the tumult of diverse voices and perspectives.
The author suggests that a good way to start a new era of political discourse is by setting a positive example and not allowing ministers to get caught up in Twitter controversies or obsessing over public opinion. They believe that many Spaniards would be more lenient in their criticism of the government if they focused on legislative agendas and ignored distractions. Despite the challenging political environment, the author argues that citizens need the government to fulfill its institutional role and not shy away from criticism.
In conclusion, the author reflects on the importance of maintaining a balance between freedom of expression and institutional decorum in political debates. They caution against silencing dissenting voices out of fear of conflict and stress the value of allowing for disagreement in a democratic society. The author advocates for a return to focusing on legislative agendas and institutional roles in political discourse, in order to ensure a healthy and productive exchange of ideas in society.
