In the first quarter of 2023 we have witnessed in our region the rejection of the political order by sectors of society. They perceive themselves as excluded and protest in ways that break the law, overstep institutions and, in some cases, receive a violent and illegitimate response from the State.

In Brazil, we saw how the supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro ignored the authority by invading the public buildings of the Congress and the Superior Court of Justice to express their ignorance of the election results. A maneuver copied from Trump’s supporters who, convinced (without any evidence) that their candidate had been the victim of electoral cheating, violently stormed Capitol Hill on January 6, 2022.

In Peru, former president Pedro Castillo was removed from office after he publicly communicated his intention to close the Congress. There, it was recorded how broad sectors that adhered to his leadership rejected his arrest and impeachment, demanded the resignation of all Executive and Legislative authorities and that new elections be held. An important difference is that at least these last demands could be channeled within the current system of government. Road blockades, destruction of public and private property were some of the actions carried out by the demonstrators. Acts of unjustified state violence also occurred in response, resulting in more than 50 Peruvian citizens killed. The violent response of the State and its tragic result accelerate a spiral of confrontation and non-recognition.

Jair Bolsonaro is a right-wing leader; Pedro Castillo, a leftist. Surely the differences between the two phenomena are profound. What they coincide is that they are led by sectors that do not recognize institutions and show that ideologies and narratives may differ, but there is a new problem facing these and other societies. Relevant sectors no longer feel challenged by the law and democratic authority, but rather excluded. They perceive themselves legitimized for an exercise of rebellion against oppression. Rightly or wrongly, according to different points of view.

The problem affects the basis of coexistence under a political order. We are going through a moment in which many societies around the world contain antagonistic sectors. They coincide in that they do not recognize the legitimacy of their opponents, feel persecuted by power and consider themselves excluded from the political-institutional mechanisms of the most diverse democratic states under the rule of law. The conflict becomes an existential antagonism and has no framework for managing it institutionally.

Political-institutional issues, such as electoral institutions and domestic politics, health issues during the pandemic, such as isolation policies, use of masks and vaccines, issues such as inclusive language, food labeling, and even the British royal family and the M&Ms can be fields of confrontation and the playing out of identities. This is a profound, global and complex phenomenon. It is probably nonsense to try to confront it in its totality. But it is essential to think of ways of public conversation that allow us to address at least some segments of the conflicts in a way that contributes to the construction of a world and a common order.

Robust social debate is the key to public policy decisions if we want to reverse the trend towards antagonistic societies. It is essential to have the greatest possible plurality, the greatest diversity of arguments and technical opinions, and to embrace disagreements. This plurality is not spontaneous, nor does it depend on good intentions. It requires the recognition and management of differences, tensions and incompatibilities. It requires methodology.

It is not at all a matter of lukewarmness or equidistance. It is not a matter of softening positions, or of false concord. It is about agreeing on good practices and rules of the game for public conversation that allow us to listen and be listened to. It is not about imposing consensus, but about improving the quality of dissent. It is about ensuring that decisions are fed by evidence, that the debate has references to distinguish facts from opinions. There are experiences around the world in which mechanisms have been implemented for scientific institutions to provide information to public policy makers and legislators, mechanisms for transparency and access to information on decision-making processes, and channels for citizen participation to include and listen to different assessments. It is necessary to advance in the knowledge of these practices and include them in the public policy cycle.

There are bound to be failures and setbacks in attempting this change. There may well be issues where it will not be possible to channel the conversation in this way. It will also be a challenge for these processes to adapt to the tempo of politics. But if the various political, social and cultural actors involved in the public sphere are willing to move in this direction, there will surely be more and more better quality decision-making processes.