Student Voices: Respectful Friction in Policymaking

By Ana Cedillo Bernal MPP’26

As a graduate student at Sanford, you come back to school because you want to make a change. You’re filled with hope and ambition and inspiration, all the ingredients you think you need to become a changemaker. You’re learning incredible things, involved in meaningful projects, and surrounded by people who care deeply about the world.

Image

And then, at some point, you’re overwhelmed.

P-sets, memos, assignments, office hours, readings, and research projects all begin to pile up. These are all things that will make you better, all designed with care, and honestly sometimes even love (shoutout to our professors!). But the “real world” can start to feel far away. You begin to wonder: What am I doing? What am I going to do? How do I turn everything I’m learning into something that actually shapes policy?

And then, every once in a while, something cuts through that noise.

In the middle of spring 2026, for me and for a group of graduate students, that moment came with former Costa Rican President Carlos Alvarado Quesada’s visit to Duke for the Crown Lecture in Ethics. 

What made the experience so striking was not only his position as a former head of state or the example of leadership he represents for Latin America, but the way he spoke about policymaking. There was no sense of cynicism or detachment. Instead, he spoke about hope, about humanity, and about the kinds of paradigms that make policy feel tangible rather than abstract.

During his pre-lecture student workshops, one idea in particular stayed with me. He described what it meant to govern without holding a majority and how, rather than treating this as a limitation, he brought people from different political parties into his administration. This was not a harmonious or easy process. On the contrary, it was defined by continuous disagreement, back and forth, and sustained dialogue between people who did not initially see eye to eye.

He illustrated this through the example of how Costa Rica reopened its borders to tourism during the 2020 pandemic, which was especially important given how central ecotourism is to the country’s economy. One minister would come back meeting after meeting with a refined proposal, while another responded each time with new, valid concerns that had not yet been addressed. It was not a matter of the same issue repeating itself, but a process where each step forward revealed another layer that needed to be worked through.

Even then, agreement was not final. As momentum began to build, a third minister raised a new concern about liability if tourists required COVID-related treatment. Once again, the process slowed. Once again, there was disagreement. It was another point where the process could have broken down. But it did not. After continued conversation, the two ministers returned with a solution: mandatory insurance for tourists to cover treatment costs.

President Alvarado shared, “You need the respectful friction of various experts who disagree. You need to acknowledge the humanity and creativity in the policy process. Strong institutions are required that have the safety nets, tools, and capabilities to hold these spaces for healthy and respectful friction, to hear ‘no,’ and to create new ideas, new problems, and new solutions.”

This perspective felt both intuitive and powerful. It reframed disagreement not as dysfunction, but as a necessary ingredient for effective policy. When different perspectives are allowed to surface fully, solutions become more robust because they have been tested against competing concerns. Rather than rushing toward consensus, the process requires sitting with complexity and allowing new ideas to emerge. At the same time, it was difficult not to contrast this with the current political climate, where disagreement often leads to polarization.

Image

As the discussions continued, this idea remained in the back of my mind, even as compelling and hopeful insights unfolded through his experiences, students’ questions, and shared anecdotes. He was generous with his time and energy, and that openness created the conditions for conversation. It felt like we, as students, stepped into that space and engaged openly. We talked about how public policy is often most effective when it is grounded in proximity and responsive to people’s concerns. While climate change can feel polarizing, people connect to its tangible effects, like wildfires, ash pollution, and extreme heat. We also reflected on the importance of pairing theory with listening, recognizing that meaningful change cannot come at the cost of ignoring the very people it is meant to serve. Through these conversations, it became easier to see the world not only as complex, but as a space for change and innovation that can still be filled with hope.

Later that evening, during a smaller dinner, the conversation shifted into stories and laughter. President Alvarado shared a simple anecdote that captured the essence of everything he had been describing. In his government, one minister from a leftist party used a cane to support an injured right leg. Another, from a right-leaning party, wore an orthopedic boot on his left foot after a hiking accident. One made a joke about it. They both laughed. Over time, they became friendly and eventually became friends.

They connected. They saw each other’s humanity. And they worked together in the same government.

As simple as that.

 

Image

 

---

Ana Cedillo Bernal (she/her) is a second-year Master of Public Policy (MPP) student at the Duke Sanford School of Public Policy and co-president of the Sanford Latin American and Caribbean student group for the 2025–26 academic year. She grew up primarily in Mexico, with a few formative years in Michigan, and has since called several places home. Before graduate school, she spent four years working in consulting and NGOs, collaborating with USAID and the U.S. Department of State’s International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Bureau to support public security institutions in Mexico. Ana is passionate about international development, particularly at the intersection of peace, security, and development. In her free time, you can find her at a spin class at Wilson, searching for a good place to dance, or stretching her grad student budget to see her latest favorite artist.