In the middle of last year, in the midst of the complications stemming from the pandemic, with an environment still exacerbated by the hustle and bustle it meant and that fueled an environment in which it seemed it was not possible to dialogue, but to insult, shout and not listen, the British newspaper The Guardian has decided to do an essay. The general idea is to have two alleged antagonists sit at a table so they can talk while dining in a good restaurant and check if their differences were as critical as expected.
The project is active and the invitation remains open to all (if any reader wants to review it, it is called dining across the divide, which could be translated as “lunch between differences”). The only requirement is the completion of an online form describing the points of view that, in the opinion of the people responsible for the idea, give rise to the most well-known disputes. The mandatory use of masks, positions on Brexit, the royal family, immigration and even opinions on whether to remove some historical statues, among other issues, make up the short questionnaire that facilitates the selection of diners. Usually, because politics is inevitable, people from the UK’s two largest parties, Labor and Conservative, are chosen. Naturally, a journalist observes the progress of the meeting and writes a report that is published weekly in the newspaper. The results are as interesting as they are revealing.
I recalled that experience of the last few weeks, seeing some meetings and photos of our leaders that seemed impossible a few months ago. I find it difficult to understand that there are citizens, undoubtedly placed at the most terrible extremes, who find these encounters problematic and regard them as acts of betrayal or falsehood, or who limit their attempts according to obscure negotiations in which only a few particular interests matter. There will be something, it is not necessary to be so naive, but above all, what is really relevant is that for a moment we leave aside the attacks, the slanders and the primary accusations, to try to find those points in common that facilitate coexistence. more civilized. It is not about convincing the opponent in all arguments, you do not have to convert anyone, it is probably enough to avoid vulgarity and creeping behavior.
I prefer to see Petro conversing with ranchers, signing deals and shaking hands, rather than seeing them attack each other like furious teenagers, infecting public opinion with excessive violence. I find it confident to see Uribe summon the president to review the most difficult issues of his administration, lowering the temperature of a childish dispute that cost us a lot. I hope this happens frequently, that they talk as much as they want, that they review their positions, that they act as rational beings. One of these days I would like to invite you, as the British did, to explore your differences in good humor over a plate of food. Yes, in a modest restaurant.
