Beliefs, critical thinking and democracy

By Fernanda Salazar

Everywhere we look, the constant is a noise-filled debate in which substance is lost. Valuable ideas are diluted in multiple forms of violence and the rhetoric of sides in which each side assumes itself to be the good guy. To be on the opposing side is, indisputably, to be wrong, evil, and deserving of humiliation and contempt, at best. At worst, threat, intimidation and downright ideas of annihilation. 

This is happening all over the world before our eyes. Those who do not identify with one of the sides do not find an alternative or a space of expression free of violence to participate in the public debate, in electoral politics and not even in the virtual field (whose violence is increasingly worrying). Mexico is no exception to this dynamic. 

Although many people reject the polarized nature of the debate in Mexico with the argument that there is a clear majority, at least at the ballot box, it is important to understand that, from conflict studies, polarizing dynamics do not require the same weight between both sides but the same tone: irreconcilable and confrontational positions that tend to deliberately cloud and disqualify moderation, ambiguity and doubt.