Governance focuses, as we all know, on actions that are determined by consensus, with everyone accepting the rules of the game.
In theory, those rules of the game are set by those of us who, in one way or another, are part of the political parties' machinery. It is worth remembering that each political formation has its bodies in which to debate the consideration of going together on one path or another, with a consensus strategy and with a single voice when defending the agreements made in the decision-making cores.
Some, protected by their assembly nature, validate antagonistic issues and, arguing as I say to their nature, raise disagreement on basic issues as a form of consensus, when they are really issues of leadership of the political formation itself, a race for prominence, in short, a "get out of the way so I can get in".
It has been evident for some time that this consensus dynamic is not applied, and I refer to the archives. We see how in government matters and within the same party, the considerations that are conveyed to citizens are different, when in my opinion these issues should, as I say, be agreed upon before issuing a single discourse.
That and no other, I believe, should be the modus operandi of democratic parties because, as I say, the important decisions are the ones that will guide the path of governance and, faced with that, the more consensus, the better.
I am repetitive in this approach, I believe in it, I believe in teamwork, proof of this is the model we have implemented in Teguise since we started in this. Cohesion and work; signs of this are what needs to be transmitted to the population.
Those who base their political activity on the unilateral taking of decisions that affect everyone, the results they obtain are more than evident, as an example to cite we have Podemos in Catalonia... Taking personal positions in one sense or another in the face of problems that affect us all produces confusion and rejection even within their own formation, and this causes the natural doubt of society to arise, which is commonly verbalized as: "If they don't agree among themselves, what will it be like when they make decisions for me...".
Let's go back to the beginning, let's go back to using the tools put at our disposal by our parties to build a future in which each one takes back their own voice and, through dialogue and consensus, we can offer a single and seamless discourse, because reality and its possible solutions are in our hands. I think that is what society expects from us.
Oswaldo Betancort
@OswaldoBetancor
