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.