Who wants to be Catalan with Orriols?

There is a fairly widespread opinion that goes like this: Orriols says what people want to hear, she talks about specific problems, about real fears. That is why they vote for her. The traditional parties have been held hostage by political correctness for a long time. She is incorrect and goes too far, her solutions are not feasible, she goes for the clash, but she says things as they are. Demonizing her is not the solution. The cordon sanitaire is not the solution.

So, how do you neutralize these supposed truths that, distorted and exaggerated, make up a reality For many people? All immigrants are potential thieves, do they not want to integrate and abuse social services? Are all Muslims extremists? Are all pro-independence parties useless? Do all non-pro-independence parties want the end of Catalonia?

For almost two years Orriols has been allowed to govern. Ripoll has become an extremist experiment. Polarization has set in. In any plural society, division is normal, even healthy. But when those in power, instead of seeking coexistence and consensus between those who have a different ideology, culture, customs, beliefs and language, hatred is stoked, and people and groups are singled out, then fracture, fear, and opposition, the good and the bad, are triggered. In democracy, politics must serve to negotiate differences, to talk, to find points of understanding on specific problems.

Turning problems into weapons against each other is no solution. Shouting about a problem, making it bigger than it is, does not solve it. Rather, it makes it worse. Denying or disguising it does not either, of course. The middle ground is always the most useful and difficult: it consists of exposing its complexity, educating, working from the base.

Let's go to insecurity. More police? It can certainly help, but it will not solve the underlying issue of poverty and inequality. The answer: education, health and housing. But let's be more specific. If a guy, an 18-year-old boy without a family, ends up on the street without papers, it is likely that in order to eat one day he will end up stealing or getting involved in small-scale drug trafficking. Should we kick him out of the country? Expulsion is expensive (you have to put him on a plane) and it is not safe (the country of origin may return him). It is surely better for him and for everyone to give him an opportunity for training and work. This is slow and requires resources, yes.

Illegal immigration. Don't let them come! OK. How do you stop a global flow? No one has yet found a formula. Should we let those who come die at sea anyway? We are doing that and it is an inhuman disgrace. Merkel took in a million Syrian refugees fleeing the war. Was she right? I think so. The issue of the female veil: should we ban it? Maybe then we will increase radicalisation. Again, it is not easy.

These and other realities need to be discussed, which does not mean looking for culprits and finding miracle recipes, which do not exist. It means establishing a dialogue with respect and intelligence, accepting the difficulties and contradictions, and being clear that we are talking about people, about lives. Today it must sound old-fashioned to say something obvious: by talking, people understand each other. By insulting, attacking, shouting, turning their backs on each other, no.

What Orriols says, besides being ethically unjustifiable, is neither useful nor practical. There are those who, for electoral calculations or in good faith, try to explain it, and end up justifying it. He is a person with compelling ideas but they are not good ideas. They are only apparently good because, so simple, they are easy to understand and they raise spontaneous applause. This is what populism is. Poisoning the debate is easy and right now it is not penalized. Look at Trump.

But if there is one good thing about Orriols, it is that he is forcing us to react, to face our own demons: those of fear and intolerance towards what is different, those of racism disguised as a defence of Catalan identity. Now that we know the data on the use of the language, we must be clear about the effect of his exclusionary discourse: if I were someone from outside and I was suspected of all evils, I would not want to be Catalan. Indeed, Orriols expels them.