Although in both Ecuador and Argentina these days we fill our mouths with the word democracy, the electoral act is not its essence or foundation. This is only a consequence of the central idea of ​​democracy, which is the peaceful coexistence of those who think differently.

On the battlefield, the weakest never wins, because it is the strong who wins, and the weak is the one who loses. But a smaller army can win, and the one with the most soldiers can lose, because it depends on the strategy and tactics – on the intelligence – applied in each battle. In a democracy, every person has a voice regardless of their status: it doesn’t matter if they are stronger, richer, more educated or more intelligent… and the strategy consists in getting enough numbers to defeat the opponent. In a democracy, even the smartest can win, and that is the one who knows reality better than others, the one who copies the terrain, the one who anticipates the will of the people because he interprets it better than the others.

Read the latest news about the elections in Ecuador

When these majorities are significantly larger, it is clear to all of us who should rule and who should remain in the opposition. But the problem arises when the main political forces are close to what in statistics is called a technical tie, which occurs when a small difference makes it impossible to talk about winners and losers. Anything can happen, even if the election ends up being so tied that equality is exact: imagine having to flip a coin to find out who wins because the election has the same number of votes among those competing in the runoff.

There is no legitimacy problem when, after counting and recounting the ballots, you win by a narrow margin and your opponents accept the result. But the problem is not the legitimacy of the vote, but the attitude of those who narrowly win, but then despotically impose themselves on those who lose, also narrowly, when it is evident that some could have won as much as others, maybe if the elections were held, they would be the day before or the next.

Imposing the opinion of the majority on minorities is the most undemocratic thing there is, and even worse when the difference between them is minimal. In these cases, governing for all means acknowledging that half of the country thinks differently and expects the deserved respect from the Government, even if it is an opponent in the elections. To make matters worse, recognizing the ideas – and thus the solutions – of the other half can be a guarantee that the opposition comes to its senses and does not destroy bridges with those who won the elections to the point of impeding the government. All the broad political forces have useful and willing people for the Unity Government. Only fanatics don’t have them, and democracy has no destiny for fanatics.

To get out of the adolescent labyrinth in our countries of Mestizo America, there is no choice but to strengthen unity with ideas that unite, surrender to those that separate and rule with all and for all. The only thing division does is spoil our hope. (OR)