Disagree, yes, disagreeable, no

IN our political exchanges, especially in these days of

electoral campaigning, we should see to it that while it is

unavoidable to disagree on some issues, we should try to avoid being

disagreeable with one another.

            We should keep our political exchanges at the level of

charity. That way, we would maintain our humanity, let alone, our

Christianity, intact. Otherwise, we would revert to our status of

animality, with the distinctive quality of rationality badly abused.

            When we talk about issues and offer our views, preferences

and, yes, biases, let’s see to it that we are always clear, showing

the reasons behind them. But let’s also be open-minded about views and

opinions that differ from ours. Everyone offers opinions from where he

is coming from, and we definitely have different backgrounds. We

should respect these differences.

            Let’s try to avoid getting too personal, because even if

we have what we may consider as evidence for our accusations against a

particular person or candidate, the fact is we would not know

everything about the matter involved, let alone, the conscience of the

person involved.

            Yes, we may present some facts, but let’s not do it to

bash or question the integrity of the person. We have to avoid

nitpicking and fault-finding and other techniques that are filled with

all kinds of negativities and venom. Even innuendos, sarcasm and

ironies should be avoided. Same with name-calling and character

assassination. Shooting from the hips should be a no-no.

            We have to be clear about this. This kind of tactics is

not part of the freedom of speech. It is an abuse of such freedom. It

serves only to muddle things, not to clarify. It spreads poison around

and would really pollute the environment, let alone, the spiritual and

moral lives of the people in general. It generates a lot of garbage,

not useful items.

            Our electoral campaigns should be an edifying moment, not

a downgrading one. They should be constructive, not destructive. They

should foster unity and understanding of one another, not division,

anger and hatred. They should be an exercise of pursuing what is truly

good for all or at least for most of the people without disadvantaging

too much the minority. It should not be an act of attacking opponents.

            We have to change the temper and tone of our electoral

campaigns. We have to make it more human, more Christian. In this some

continuing formation has to be done by everyone—the candidates

themselves, the political leaders, media and the people in general.

            We have to find ways of how we can exchange opinions

without compromising the respect due to everyone. We have to learn to

agree and win in an issue without lording it over others, just as we

too have to learn to disagree without being disagreeable.

            We have to realize more deeply that to achieve this kind

of political exchanges will always involve, first of all, a vibrant

and intimate relationship with God. Without this, there is no way we

can keep our discussions in charity.

            Unfortunately, there are already a lot of people who find

this conditio-sine-qua-non irrelevant and useless. They believe that

in politics, God should not be involved. The voice of the Church

should not be heard, otherwise it would be accused of meddling.

            It’s clear that the doctrine of separation of Church and

state is gravely misunderstood. This is a challenge that has to be

tackled squarely, but always in charity and with tons of patience. We

have to pray first of all for a massive and thorough conversion of

everyone.

            Perhaps, this current election campaign period is a good

moment to undertake a program of educating everyone about how our

political exchanges should be. I believe everyone can contribute in

his own way, even if it is just a few enlightening words posted on the

social media.