Isotta Ricci Bitti, Managing Director, APROPOS Group Chiara Rosselli, Executive Director, APROPOS Group
This essay was originally published in the Bundeskanzler-Helmut-Schmidt-Stiftung Magazine 'For a Just Democracy!'. The original is available here.
Despite widespread calls for bridge-building across political divides, we remain uncomfortable with engaging in real dialogue that isn't merely performative. This weakness in our political culture has become an existential threat to democracy.
In France, 56 per cent of people believe their society is so divided that they can no longer move forward together (Lefevre 2024). By sharing this finding from recent research into French public opinion, Mathieu Lefevre from the non-profit More in Common challenges us with a question: Are we addicted to constant opposition?
Over the years, we have heard much lip service paid to bridge-building across political divides and the need to break out of our echo chambers to engage with people whose views differ from our own. Polarisation is among the most cited political challenges of our times. While we seem to support the idea of engagement with the other in theory, what we are actually comfortable with is an abstract and sterile version of dialogue. More often than not, we think of dialogue as a means to convince the other side of our truth. This is a very human error: idealising a version of dialogue that feels comfortable and yet is largely performative. It occurs because real, generative dialogue that deeply challenges our values, identities and self-worth, with no assurance of “winning” is discomforting and, if we care deeply about the issue under discussion, can be terrifying.
Yet, dialogue is not primarily a tool to reach agreement. Instead, it is an intellectual and deeply human exercise in collective sense-making. This fundamental misunderstanding about the function of dialogue is fuelled by a grave cognitive dissonance. We claim to want bridge-building exchanges and a pluralistic democracy which is open to the perspectives of others, but we tend to resist real dialogue, driven by the urge to confirm rather than challenge our views. This tension has become a dangerous threat to our democracy.
Dialogue in today’s political climate
In the current era, the intricacy and interconnected nature of political challenges denies us the luxury of simple solutions. This complexity often leads to political outcomes which disappoint voter expectations, further dividing societies into polarised camps. In this context, dialogue and dialectic instruments are critical not only for what they deliver, but also for what they represent.
It is only through dialogue and deliberative inquiry that we can aspire to more intelligent, nuanced policies, while also defending the legitimacy of the democratic process itself, even when the political outcomes aren’t what we hoped for.
Advocating for real dialogue in our political climate is increasingly risky, as engagement and compromise are seen as necessary evils, rather than the very litmus test of a functioning democracy. We perhaps prefer not to be reminded that democracy’s legitimacy comes from its ability to accommodate and manage conflict, as theorised in Chantal Mouffe’s “Agonistics”: It is a key task of democracy to build institutions that allow us to manage conflict with the other – as ‘adversaries’ rather than ‘enemies’ (Mouffe 2013).
If we approach politics without this mindset, and without understanding the central role that conflict must play in advancing democracy, regardless of policy or electoral outcomes, we have already lost.
Without the ability to engage, constructively, with difference, we are abdicating the very essence of what it means to practice democracy.
In defence of dialogue
We believe dialogue is not just a “nice to have,” but a utilitarian and ethical necessity. It is impossible to imagine a just democracy without it.
Dialogue is a utilitarian necessity, an essential tool to sharpen our political thinking.
Engaging in dialogue sharpens one’s own policy ideas, vision and values. Avoiding engagement with opposing views diminishes our capacity to shape a more informed and cohesive future. In an era where the political solutions available seem unsatisfactory, dialogue is a unique and powerful diagnostic instrument to refine our understanding of and dissect political problems and narratives. It is an instrument which we believe, following Weber’s “ethics of responsibility” (Weber 1919), political actors cannot responsibly opt out of using.
Dialogue is an ethical imperative, the foundational value on which democracy is built.
For a democracy to function, dialogue is a non-negotiable value. At its core, it represents our ability to recognise the humanity of others and the inherent trade-offs which are inescapable in any democratic community. In times of profound division, it is one of the instruments that can act as an antidote to violence. Recent political violence, such as the assault on Capitol Hill and the assassination attempts on Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico and Donald Trump, to name a few, highlights the dangers of a society that is increasingly desensitised to political aggression and which has lost touch with the democratic principle of dialogue as a non-violent alternative to conflict management.This defence of dialogue is rooted in what Max Weber would call an “ethics of conviction” (Weber 1919): by upholding dialogue we demonstrate a commitment to democracy, even if it means facing difficult conversations and criticism.
Where does this leave us?
Weber would say that when faced with an ethical dilemma, such as the one posed by engagement, we need to learn how to oscillate between our convictions and responsibilities. We believe this is best done through practice rather than abstraction. Dialogue, however, represents both: We believe it is an ethical imperative and that we have a responsibility to use it as a tool for improving political thinking and outcomes. To strengthen our political dialogue muscle, we must commit above all to the practice of dialogue.
If we have a clear understanding of why a just democracy requires us to engage, we can accept that dialogue will not always be comfortable or yield the desired results. Far from deterring us, this should motivate us to refine our expertise in dialogue as a democratic tool.
Ten years of experimenting with political dialogue spaces across parties and borders, in the process bringing together hundreds of politicians through the Open European Dialogue project, have taught us beyond a reasonable doubt that dialogue can renew trust, sharpen thinking and refine political vision and values. We believe it is indispensable to invest in gaining a deeper understanding of dialogue and its practical applications in politics. The health of our democracy depends upon it.
In pursuit of this mission, we are launching the Coalition for Dialogue and Cooperation in Politics. This initiative will be a collaborative research and development hub, dedicated to the study of political dialogue and collaboration as well as the development of tools to support effective solution-building for policymakers. Through our partnerships across Europe and the world, we aim to deliver new knowledge and tools for more constructive political exchanges and to serve and strengthen our democracies at a time of extreme political division.
Dialogue is our most powerful democratic tool, but also the most currently threatened. The time to act is now.
References
Lefevre, Mathieu (2024): La division ou le destin commun? | Mathieu Lefevre | TEDxParis. Tedx Talks. YouTube. 21 June 2024, https://youtu.be/nCj8nejK10c?si=U2qvaHxRy27F5mvU (date of retrieval: 30.07.2024).
Mouffe, Chantal (2013): Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically, London/New York: Verso Books.
Weber, Max (1946): Politics as a vocation, New York: Oxford University Press.