I have insisted on the need for an amnesty that allows the return to the country of our greatest political exile: moderation. As long as we fail to incorporate it into the debate, we will not find a way out of the problems that bog us down as a society and thus remove any possibility of serious agreement on the fundamental problems that hide behind the noise of the discussions.
We require more than a law or decree to bring it back. The virtual wall erected with our great differences makes it impossible to understand how urgent it is to have her back among us. Sitting at the table to settle differences is not a sign of weakness, much less of giving in. Until we understand it this way, we will be at the expense of mediators with their own agendas. Hence the difficulty in each attempt to reach laws and agreements that summarize the feelings of all political actors, plunging us into the sterile and insubstantial debate of the complaint and the uselessness of looking for them behind closed doors, which only demonstrate the high degree of childishness prevailing . For this reason, agreements are scarce and compromises abound.
There is no treatment at the highest level, no handshakes at the top of the political leadership. The exchange is not driven face to face, with the cards on the table. It occurs in the media, with proclamations as bizarre as they are superficial, to make headlines, setting aside all essence. No one can determine when we dispense with moderation, the absence of which leads us from one ravine to another. The only thing that is certain is that there has been a lack of will and gallantry to reach lasting agreements on issues that the country needs. Will that abounded, instead, when we got out of it, moderation, and we chose to send it as far away from us.
The future remains a distant purpose that we will not reach with crutches.
