Another form of political violence

If there was any doubt, it is already clear: Vox is a party of insurgents within the democratic system.

Their ideological hatred seeks to create a climate of political fanaticism through provocations that reach an echo due to their aggressiveness.

More than instilling a message, it seeks to create a deleterious environment that locks us in hateful worldviews.

This is how the threats against Minister Irene Montero work.

Congress has been the protagonist, not for approving the third Legislature Budgets, but because the fanatics have turned it into a toxic place that puts us before the stoic challenge of rejecting the invitation to contagion of hate.

The debate on the law of

it vanishes to make way for the democratic urgency to defend the person who promoted it.

The situation is paradoxical, since the strange perception is created that there is no distinction between legitimate criticism of a law, or of the painful defense strategy that its promoter made of it, and the intolerable personal attacks of the ultra-right.

So this week, in addition to Vox's political violence against the minister, we have seen another singular form of violence, which consists of intimidation caused by the claws of competing dogmatisms.

The democratic debate can only be guaranteed if the demand for alignment in the condemnation of hate speech is distinguished from rational criticism.

When we do not differentiate the criticism that seeks to ensure democratic life from the one that seeks to undermine it, public debate is crushed.

attack can be strongly condemned.

and defend the democratic ideal of discussion without becoming "co-responsible" for hate.

A healthy political culture is only possible if its actors work to promote plurality of viewpoints, rather than foster sectarian politics.

The Manichean game of binarisms has long colonized public conversation, denying any discrepancy or nuance.

There is a moral and factional appropriation of notions such as "democracy" or "feminism" that replaces the debate of ideas and projects with a suffocating world, morally ordered around excluding opposites: with me or against me.

Are you really a feminist or a democrat or are you in the service of evil?

Moralization demonizes the adversary, and thus debate or reasons of a political nature, the transaction game or accountability for mismanagement or politically dubious decisions are impossible.

By embodying good in the fight against fascism, everything seems justified, even displacing the debate of ideas or legitimate criticism.

There is a serious problem when rational dissent over a law is seen as a threat to feminism.

But, just as no one embodies feminism or democracy, it is a feminist and democratic value to reject and work against any form of bullying in public conversation.

Especially those of our tribe.

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

Keep reading

I'm already a subscriber