The offices where I work are in the Madrid neighborhood of Fuencarral, a popular neighborhood with neighbors who with their work make Spain get up and go every day. A few days ago, with a hangover from the debate between Sánchez and Feijóo, I left the subway and had breakfast in the usual bar for the first coffees in the morning. Upon entering, on the local television, the news constantly repeated images of the face to face and the gathering commented on the play. The country that television reflected was far from the day that took place in that bar in a popular neighborhood. These two realities, which occur simultaneously, are perceived as different and distant. This is bad news for the health of democratic processes and institutions that are forgetting about the population that needs them the most.
Someone with some social commitment, empathy with the citizenry and a project for the country in his head, beyond the headline and the easy zasca, would have been capable of fighting a Feijoo who has no other proposals than not to everything, to be anti-everything and repeal everything. It wasn’t easy, but a president of a progressive government cannot afford to lose touch with the citizenry and not question them when he has the opportunity.
One of the stumbling blocks in the debate was at the first minute, when the moderator fired at Pedro Sánchez the first question about the difficulties of families to fill the shopping basket. The president of the government, without mentioning and acknowledging these difficulties, went directly, in a defensive tone, to recite macroeconomic data and say how well the country is doing. The image was lousy and what he transmitted is heartbreaking.
Discussions are not an interview, but serve an even broader function and carry a higher burden of responsibility. They are the formal way through which citizens can listen, during the electoral period, to the proposals that the main candidates for the presidency of the nation’s government have to regulate our coexistence. It is an opportunity for the candidates to be accountable to the citizens, appeal them and convince them. Unfortunately and amazingly none of this happened yesterday. Yesterday there was no talk of projects, or public policies, or how citizens face the day to day. There was also no talk of the future.
The development of yesterday’s debate is bad news, not only in view of the result of the polls on July 23, but also to consolidate a progressive and radically democratic project that it is imperative to develop and promote in the face of the various threats that our democracy is already suffering. .
Throughout the debate, data without context was spat out, multiple “and you more”, interruptions and insults that were a machine for generating disaffection and weariness. The great disconnection that exists between political representatives, their teams and television sets with the public was evidenced.
Given this scenario, there is no twist in the script that is worth it. What is necessary is to take it seriously, generate good teams and work tasks and look beyond the general elections of 23J. This is a distance race and requires training and work.
The short gaze is not capable of responding to current needs. In a globalized and interconnected world like the current one, it is vital to treat social demands from other perspectives. It no longer makes sense to divide a debate into watertight compartments when our reality is more complex. Doesn’t employment have to do with sustainability? Doesn’t social policy have to do with employment? Doesn’t the economy have to do with the fight against inequality and the fight against climate change? Introducing issues such as artificial intelligence, gender equality or the urgent updating of public decision-making processes is vital if we want to solve the problems we already have today. It is the responsibility of the political representatives, because this is not the future, but the present.
Given this scenario, not only are we at stake in the upcoming general elections on July 23, but we are also at stake for something much more important, the health of our democracy.
