Collective life can be built in two ways.

One, based on an authoritarian/centralized system; Someone, or a group, makes decisions on behalf of everyone because they believe they have (have they been given? Have they taken it?) the wisdom to better understand everyone’s needs. These schemes generally end badly economically and socially (the quality of life does not progress beyond a certain point) and politically (suppression of those who think differently). Two, an open system in which decisions are delegated to those elected as representatives, but society is still deliberative (it has given up only part of its rights and powers) and must assume that, how?, with the capacity to agree on fundamental issues, what is achieved only with a complex exercise: dialogue. Where are we in Ecuador? Perhaps between the two, because we value the second (democracy) but often yearn for the first (authoritative leader).

Speech failure

simplification

Dialogue? It is not just about talking, but about much more: initially the ability to meet among those who think differently (first step, not easy, humility), then listening trying to understand why each other thinks differently and finally gathering opinions to reach an agreement. .. the result, not perfect, but reasonable. “Negotiations are good when neither side is satisfied, but the result is acceptable to all.” heavy. But when it comes to broader social issues, two more things need to be added: where are the meeting spaces that enable dialogue? Who conducts the dialogue? One of the big problems in Ecuador is that we are not willing to dialogue (meet), we don’t have the space for it and somehow those who can dialogue do not accept it (the elites in a broader sense, all those who can express themselves on behalf of the group, from individual journalists to the president of the taxi drivers’ union). That’s why we left a number of important issues up in the air, from labor reform to the pension system and much more. And often we don’t even agree on the numbers that are fundamental to the dialogue.

For an ethical pact

Why our inability to dialogue? There are many reasons, and all of them are related to what we would say “this is our culture”, which ends up being a poor excuse because the shortcomings of the culture must be able to be overcome. Onewe just don’t care, we don’t see its value. Twofor some arrogance to believe that they are above others. Threedistance between social groups: we are not at the same level even for meetings, much less for dialogue. fourhidden interests, privileges, powers or economic advantages can be lost with dialogue. Five, a much-needed but poorly understood ideology: “I am of one inclination, you of another, I cannot give in to your demands”, when maintaining beliefs should not prevent agreements. Sixwhat I allow myself to call “virginity”: I don’t associate with these or those because they are “bad”. seventemptation almost from the beginning in our common themes: to label, to disqualify, to place everyone in his corner and not move from there.

And there will be more reasons, no doubt… Can we get over it? (OR)