A mismatch between dialogue and actions
In today’s media-saturated and often polarised political environment, Bobbio’s philosophy provides a critical framework, especially as power often remains unchecked and decision-making processes lack transparency
Published: 05:03 PM,Mar 04,2026 | EDITED : 09:03 PM,Mar 04,2026
In war, the goal is to compel the opponent to submit to one’s will. Within the current situation, there is a blatant hostile intention, regardless of how intensive the dialogues may be. It appears that engaging in an argument is no longer an invitation to understanding. Occasionally, time spent on dialogue is merely a pretext.
According to Carl von Clausewitz, a Prussian military theorist, war is a continuation of politics by other means. He describes it as the collision between hostile bodies, where the impact of opposing forces leads to reciprocal actions. History, as we have seen repeatedly, is full of examples where war brings about a worse change.
The challenges of a new global order point to the relevance of Desiderius Erasmus’s principles on dialogue. Five centuries ago, Erasmus’s ideology was fundamental to creating consensus, not merely about winning an argument, but partners working together to explore both sides of an issue. He favoured mutual understanding over violence.
In recent times, the Italian philosopher Norberto Bobbio, who chose Erasmus as his model, has advocated for the need for dialogue during turbulent times. Bobbio's 20th-century ideas concentrate on achieving peace and upholding human rights.
From a less benevolent perspective, it can be hypothesised that international relations in the current world are facing unprecedented levels of complexity and chaos. We are experiencing a recession of trust, characterised by a decline in confidence across global businesses, national governments, and institutions. People are retreating from dialogue while the use of force is becoming prevalent. The reasons for escalating tensions can be as diverse as one wants them to be; the ‘let’s see what happens’ approach.
In 2025, amid rounds of indirect talks facilitated by the Sultanate of Oman between the United States and Iran, the United States bombed Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, which formed part of a broader Israeli assault. During the February 2026 talks, Iran acknowledged an atmosphere of mistrust among opposing states.
In today’s media-saturated and often polarised political environment, Bobbio’s philosophy provides a critical framework, especially as power often remains unchecked and decision-making processes lack transparency.
In analysing contemporary media, where digital platforms frequently exacerbate the polarisation of political discourse, it is essential for intellectuals to reveal the underlying influences and manipulation within the media in order to prioritise constructive dialogue.
The media have changed dramatically since historical diplomatic negotiations such as the 1978 Camp David Accords (Israel-Egypt peace), the 1995 Dayton Accords (ending the Bosnian War), and the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which aimed to ensure Iran’s nuclear programme remained exclusively peaceful by limiting enrichment activities for sanctions relief).
Partisanship has always been a characteristic of mainstream media. However, in an unfamiliar landscape, social media platforms often amplify radical, polarised content, creating an environment favourable to the spread of misinformation. Fabrication and information manipulation are fragmenting societies. Sensationalised or false reports can quickly incite populations to engage in violence or hinder peace negotiations.
The philosophy of diplomatic negotiation is to prevent conflicts through proactive engagement and to manage existing disputes through peaceful, structured communication. The aim is to bridge differences by identifying common ground, converting a struggle of interests into a mutually acceptable solution. It is also about understanding different cultural values, such as collectivist versus individualistic perspectives on issues like human rights and sovereignty.
As trust erodes and conflicts intensify, dialogue is indispensable for finding solutions. However, a significant aspect of achieving peace lies in a genuine desire for it. As recently demonstrated, dialogue can be employed deceptively when the potential for confrontation outweighs the benefits of diplomacy.