November 9th is inexorably approaching, and appeals for dialogue grow and become --surprise!-- tacit accusations of a refusal to talk. If I allow myself a silly comparison, it's as if someone invited us to dinner and then immediately told us that, in fact, we had refused to accept the invitation and, as a result, withdrew what he had said a few moments before and uninvited us. It's all a bit cynical and ridiculous. Anyway, and much as that little word "dialogue" has been devastated by the action of the pseudo-political phraseology and a kind of absurdity of lay sanctity, a willingness to sit down and talk is necessary in certain contexts, such as in a democracy. In other contexts, for instance under a dictatorship, there's no need to talk much: things work because of blows and shouts, and that is plenty. A democracy without dialogue, however, is simply inconceivable, unimaginable. For this precise reason, the new populisms on the right and left that have arisen from the crisis feel a genuine aversion to parliaments, like their ideological forebears of the 1930s. In Parliament, neither the verbal harassment of politicians, nor megaphones, nor showy shtick count for anything; the only things that count are arguments and the exchange of ideas following equal rules for everyone.
Now: a dialogue between people who think the same makes no sense (it's little more than entertainment) and dialogue between parties that are diametrically opposed is almost impossible. So then: where is the real space for dialogue? This is the real question. I am convinced that, prior to political dialogue in its strictest sense, it is necessary to identify a true area of intersection where a consensus can be assumed. An example to illustrate my point: I could argue about the price of a second-hand car, for example, and it might appear that there was not nor could there be any possibility of consensus; but that is not true. There is a basic consensus in the fact that I recognize the seller as the legitimate owner of that vehicle, and he sees me as a person that has a right to purchase it. That we can't agree on a price, then, does not mean that there is no "possibility" of doing so, if only we could agree on a purchase price that we both consider reasonable.
Recently, Rosa Díez, conveniently advised by Fernando Savater, said in Parliament that democracy is also about not voting, such as not voting to bring back slavery, etc. This comment, embarrassing from the start, is based on identifying a vile moral attitude with something as commonplace as voting, but it can only fool simple-hearted people, undoubtedly, and is only wordplay that solves nothing. The fact that the leader of a party that is not even represented in the Catalan parliament is giving lessons on parliamentary procedure and representation is simply amazing, but that is another matter. What matters today is: we have to speak about something before November 9th, but about what? What is the common area of intersection? Where is the "point" where consensus is assured? Faith in democratic principles, perhaps? That is too abstract. The results of the next elections? That is too concrete. What would be truly shareable and would permit, taking into account the inevitable discrepancies, a real and mainly functional rapprochement?
I believe that this comfort zone coincides with the specific interests that we have in common. It is not an abstraction for avoiding the question, what I just said: I will try to spell it out to the last letter. In the medium term, if Spain refuses to recognize the majority will of the people and the Parliament of Catalonia, it will lose credibility and, later, international legitimacy. Symmetrically, if Catalonia acts in a way that is not acceptable to the European Union and the rest of the world, it will also lose credibility and, subsequently, legitimacy. From my humble perspective, this is precisely the area of understanding from which we have to start: that of conflicting interests that paradoxically converge. It will be in Spain's interests to act in accordance with the basic rules of democracy, and the same holds true for Catalonia. Outside of this framework there is nothing of interest to anyone. The battle will be won by whoever knows that it's not about winning a battle, but understanding democracy as an intelligent substitute for all battles.
