A conflict-free society is nothing more than a dictatorship. The conflict, however, has a “bad press”: it brings to mind fear, violence and insecurity. Being on the side of the conflict is the same as being very close to the Taliban or terrorism, as you said. Conflict is conceived as an evil, aggressive, violent and unilateral concept.

It is true that everyday life is more comfortable if we behave like everyone else and agree on key issues (sometimes it is enough to keep quiet), always in favour of a humble and peaceful social coexistence. Many times, we behave like at Christmas family dinners: for not breaking the good atmosphere and peace, we surrender. It's tempting to let us go into the mainstream. But it was much more painful to go up the river like a salmon.

However, being content with that has an expensive price, according to historian Tony Judt: “Democracy of consensus will not last long as democracy.” After all, what is a democracy of consensus? A political tendency to follow things as they are, using the silent majority as an instrument.

The most perfect example is, again, Navarra. Every day we hear statements in favour of consensus, putting stability and economic revival into the same sack: that the magic key to achieving this is a great pact, “setting aside political differences, for the benefit of the general interests”.

However, here and around the world, disagreement and renunciation are the guarantees of a broad society. We need citizenship that is contrary to the opinion of that humble and uncritical majority, precisely because it is a job for real democracy: ideological opposition, questioning the principles that are rooted.

The energy to respond to the new challenges will not be found in the closed circles of ideas of the past, or by calling for political consensus.
In short, what sets us apart gives us individual identity. And explaining in detail where we are in society marks our interest, that is, the lie of general interests. The playing field for this clash of interests is conflict. And the solution of any conflict is decided by the correlation of forces.

So things, consensus is nothing more than a trick to avoid conflict, a sign of weakness. That is why anyone who flies in the flag of democratic conflict is moving forward, making it clear that fear has passed alongside enemies. And those who ask for consensus are constrained, even though they pretend to be angry.