Given the experience with previous dialogue attempts, the country is witnessing this new process under a deeply emotional climate. Supported and at the same time promoting an argumentation with a sentimental and emotional charge, which tends to resist, invalidate or simply deny reasoning, and evidence.
In such a context, dialogue -which goes hand in hand with pluralism, tolerance, participation, political equality and freedom- takes place between two expectations or bets, success and / or failure ... Dialogue, as a way of doing politics, strengthens the democratic political culture and depends on an ethical conception of coexistence in democracy. In the current situation, the actors of the dialogue have assumed from a kind of emotional reasoning the magnitude of their commitment to the country and citizens, to democratic values and, therefore, to democracy. However, given the negative experience with previous attempts, a question hangs in the air around the results of this new process. Will democracy be victorious or will it also be doomed to failure?
In this context, the Government surprises with two measures that feed both rationality and emotionality. It informs the decision to incorporate the diplomat Alex Saab as a full delegate to the Dialogue Table in Mexico. Unexpected move that shakes the political table, dislodges the opposition, "tenses the negotiation", "endangers the dialogue in Mexico" and raises a question "What is Chavismo looking for by incorporating Alex Saab to the dialogue table?" Subsequently, it is announced that the Public Ministry opened an investigation against Juan Guaidó for “Usurpation of Functions, Treason, Conspiracy, Qualified Theft of Assets and Association for Delinquiries.” Clarifying that the measure does not have to do with everything he has done since it “self-proclaimed”, but specifically with the case of Monomers.
Surprising exercise of power and a change in the rules of the game that will undoubtedly affect the political game, including dialogue. Strategy that leads us to a dilemma. It urges us to control emotion and reason or, on the contrary, allow us to reason emotionally and use emotion to explain reality.
How to balance them?