The Erosion of Public Dialogue
8 January, 2024
In the realm of democracy, the exchange of ideas has traditionally been at its core. However, the current state of public discourse raises questions about the true nature of this democratic principle. A case in point is the intriguing debate that emerged in December 2023 regarding the inclusion of Willemstad on the UNESCO World Heritage list. This discussion, ostensibly about the value of cultural preservation, has uncovered more profound contradictions within the democratic process.
The initial argument against Willemstad’s UNESCO status centers around its perceived hindrance to real estate development in the district. Many share the view that the ruins are an eyesore and an obstacle to progress. However, what becomes alarming is the lack of awareness that Willemstad is, in fact, an open-air museum preserving the history and identity of Curaçao.
The perplexing aspect of the debate lies in the fact that city development is not prohibited. Modern buildings can be constructed, provided architects adhere to existing laws, regulations, and government policies. The real issue at hand is discerning why some stakeholders claim UNESCO status impedes development. Moreover, the dialogue surrounding this matter seems driven more by opinions than factual and systematic arguments.
The democratic arena has shifted from an exchange of information and ideas to a platform dominated by opinions. The focus has strayed from solving societal problems to stirring emotions and demonizing those attempting to present facts and reasoned arguments. The essence of democracy, characterized by informed decision-making, appears to be eroding.
A prevailing myth asserts that any investment is inherently good for the economy and its people, creating jobs. This ‘truth’ remains largely unquestioned, sidelining discussions on the impact of development on nature, climate change, and heritage.
The term “alternative facts,” introduced during President Trump’s tenure, has further muddied the waters. Originally coined to defend false statements, this concept has permeated public discourse, diminishing the role of science to just another opinion. Opinions often override facts even on critical issues like climate change, where scientific consensus should guide decision-making.
In essence, the erosion of public dialogue poses a significant threat to the democratic process. Opinions, often devoid of factual basis, dominate discussions, sidelining the exchange of information and ideas vital for informed decision-making. To reclaim the true spirit of democracy, it is imperative to revive a culture of open and informed dialogue that transcends emotional rhetoric and addresses society’s critical issues.
Miguel Goede
Comentarios