Importance of Dissent to Build

If in a group of people If there are disagreements or different points of view on an issue, these disagreements are not necessarily negative. In fact, dissent or lack of consensus should be interpreted as the natural expression of the freedom of expression and, at the same time, as a circumstance prior to the search for agreements.

Without the necessary agreements, it becomes very difficult to build a social climate of coexistence.

The absence of discrepancies in the political sphere only occurs in the context of a dictatorship

In a democratic country, the representatives of the popular will have different formulas and proposals to address problems. Despite this, every responsible politician must try to reach an agreement or pact with the representatives of other formations, since some decisions that affect all citizens have to be the result of a consensus previous.

employers and unions

The representatives of the workers and the employers hold different positions on various issues: wages, working hours and hours of rest, working conditions, etc. At a negotiating table, both parties initially express their fundamental proposals, but after a logical debate it becomes necessary to reach an agreement.

It is very likely that both businessmen and unions They have to give up their initial claims, but the important thing is that the final agreement is minimally satisfactory for both parties.

In daily life

In most families, debates take place on all kinds of issues: the destination of the holidays, leisure hours for minors or the basic rules of coexistence. In all these cases there are two possible positions: the authoritarian approach of the parents or the dialogue with the children in order to agree on the most reasonable solution for each circumstance. If the first option is chosen, it is very likely that permanent conflicts and logical discomfort will occur in the family.

If the chosen path is that of dialogue, coexistence will be strengthened and a climate of understanding will be breathed.

Let's imagine a group of friends who meet to decide on a plan for the weekend. Surely each of them has their own proposal and to make a decision there are several solutions:

1) decide at random which is the chosen option,

2) carry out a vote to verify which of the proposals is the majority or

3) that a member of the group imposes her will on others.

The second choice is the most reasonable, since it represents the majority and, on the other hand, allows each member of the group to freely express their concerns and interests.

The other alternatives are less reasonable (random choice may not represent the majority and imposing one's criteria has an authoritarian quality that only satisfies one individual).

Images: Fotolia. kid_a, a3701027