In politics; there are two ways to deal with the other opinions or views:
The first way is: getting rid of those who have different views, describe them as bad people, and may terrorists, create a public opinion against them, and finally do not allow them to express their opinions by any way.
The good result of the first way is that you will have one voice, you will hear and read just your opinion through different forms, but you have to be careful because it seems your regime will be a dictatorial.
The second way is: trying to create a real dialogue between the different parties, give all party equal chances to express their opinions, and try to manage a process of negotiations reaching to make an agreement.
The good result of the second way is that you will have a democratic regime, you will avoid violence, and more strong relations between the different trends, but you have to be careful from the foreign interventions.
It seems the second way is more better, more compatible with the human principles, and also it will ensure better and creative opportunities for the future, the irony here is the second way was the less chosen way by the leaders during the human history, the history is full of stories about invaders, war makers and killers, but rarely cares about peace activists, or those who provide their people with a good standard of life, or those who make their achievements in silence.
We know very well the history of atomic bombs in the Second World War, but we don't know anything about the victims except their nationalities, what was the number of dead people and the number of families who lost their breadwinners?, what was the effects?, and how can they deal with the new facts to create new Japan?.
History doesn't care about these questions, because it was always be written by the victor.