The former Minister of the Interior and former president of the Socialist Party highlighted that “there is a deep phenomenon of institutional, political, and social degradation, which was evident with the social outbreak of 2019 and which has not been resolved.” In an interview, he indicated that it affects the parties, the Congress, the justice system and in response to that, he stated that “we must take seriously the great issues and problems that lie ahead of us, and not get into the pit of mediocrity because we deteriorate as we do.” country”. In this framework, he pointed out that with the story of “Octoberism”, “the elite managed to bury 2019 and redefine it in their favor.”
Hugo Guzman. Journalist. “The century”. Santiago. 5/18/2024. What is your view of what is happening with the right, with the representations of Evelyn Matthei, José Antonio Kast, their positions, their perspective?
Well, they have different leadership rivalries, but in substance they do not convey that there are differences of substance, of proposals, of projects, except in the degree of conservatism among the Republicans – on the side of the extreme right -, a less classic right – which represents Matthei-, and an old right linked to the most oligarchic cadres. Now, I don’t believe there is a liberal right, there is the traditional right and more extreme expressions. The entire right in radicalized conservatism.
They have an electoral base, they did well in the elections for constitutional councilors and they look closely at the municipal election.
Yes, but I would be careful with easy and linear analyses, like the one done when the first plebiscite for the new Constitution was lost and which the right knew how to capitalize extremely well, they said that 60% were in favor of the old Constitution and that they were most. They raised their voices, they stuck out their chests, they imposed an agenda. They said there had been a rush toward conservatism in the national electorate. But that was not so. The other plebiscite came, the right and the extreme right presented a constitutional proposal, worse in many ways than the highly reformed Constitution of 1980, and they lost, particularly the Republicans failed. That is why I believe that certain conclusions were and are wrong, especially in saying that conservatism had grown. In Chile three thirds are preserved. If you look at the support for (Gabriel) Boric, it is at 30 percent, the right remains at 30% and, well, we should look at the center positions.
In the face of the municipal and gubernatorial election, could the right prevail as was stated a few months ago or is the electoral dispute open?
There is a more open dispute. Because municipal elections have specificities, unlike parliamentary and presidential elections, they are less politicized, less partisan, citizens look more at management. I see it at the fair, where now one sees the hit in the pocket of middle class families, and it is seen that people are very concerned about the management, about what is done or not done in the daily life of a commune. , people are more alert to that than to political definitions.
And how do you see the ruling party? Is the agreement between the two official conglomerates with the Christian Democrats positive for the municipal elections? An agreement could be seen for the parliamentary and presidential elections.
I see the agreement as positive for the municipal elections, but I don’t know if they will go as far as for the parliamentary and presidential elections, although it is possible, because there is a question of survival. If they do not agree, they make things easier for the third on the right. Now, the political center is very fragmented, in the DC there are many people who left and formed other parties, the Radical Party subsists because there will always be radicals, groups have emerged that say they are from the center, we have a phenomenon where the political center It is pulverized. But we also have a fragmented left, there are “ene” lefts, from a left inclined to the right, to a more advanced left. But some agreements are positive, such as for municipal ones.
You see the political mapping mixed up, dispersed.
There is a deeper phenomenon of institutional, political, and social degradation, which was evident with the social outbreak of 2019 and which has not been resolved. To the extent that it is not resolved, it will continue its course and will have effects on politics, on parties, on fragmentation, on dispersion. But you also have problems such as the individualization of political power, which is now extreme, and in the end things happen almost by agreement between people. Because the parties have become oligarchized, and sometimes they are not political differences, of substance, of projects, but rather they are problems and conflicts between people and you see more of an elite than a dispute over spaces of power.
In this fragmentation, as you explain it, options arise such as a bloc or alliance of the Communist Party and Frente Amplio and an alliance around Democratic Socialism. Do you think they should unite, coordinate?
That is possible, and they should agree against the right, which shows that despite their differences and different leaderships, in the end they agree. Because in many situations the center-left privileges difference and disagreement over the interest that can unite them. It seems to me that those sectors you mention have no choice but to reach electoral agreements, at least to avoid being devastated. So I think those agreements are going to happen. Now, it is true that we have two government coalitions for the first time, and the truth is that they never stuck, there are many tensions, and that makes the political and electoral base complex and precarious. Although it also has its strengths.
Is there no other option than the agreement?
There is no other choice, among other things, for political survival.
Does a certain deficit influence installing a proposal, a story, really reaching people?
Obviously, because in my opinion the left, in general, is not reaching the people. We see expressions salonized, involved in the halls of politics, doing a lot of politics in Valparaíso, in Congress, parliamentary politics, which is what moves the parties a lot and the dynamics of the parties are in what happens in Congress. Look, today we are discussing another law regarding rebels in Parliament, which emerged as a phenomenon in the nineties, and the parties are discussing a lot about rebels, placing importance on it, and it is nonsense from the political elite that does not care the people and that it does not solve anything in terms of the people’s problems. Of course, it resolves internal party regulations. I think politics has cupularized even more so, where there is a theater with a stage where some perform in front of an audience that watches, that no one listens to, that is silent. For now.
In the middle of this the story or definition of “Octoberism” is installed…
But it is a story of resignification of what happened in 2019. It is a story of the country’s conservatism, where I put the traditional oligarchic right, the extreme right and the conservative sectors of the former Concertación. The elite managed to bury 2019 and redefine it in their favor.
And how do the left and progressivism rescue or mean the story of the social revolt?
Which left, which progressivism? Because there are several lefts. Because I would tell you that there is almost no left anymore, that’s my opinion. What prevails is a generalized conservatism, in different forms and with exceptions. There is right-wing conservatism but there is also left-wing conservatism. The political elite has not taken up the social demands that erupted in 2019 and some dedicated themselves to resignifying 2019 and criminalizing 2019 and forgetting about that bad time.
It is proposed that in these scenarios the social movement is, or would be, very important.
Obviously. I believe that without a social movement nothing happens. But elitist logic prevails in political work. With a silent public, a mass that does not speak out, and a mass that suffers, that is trying to survive, that suffers from an economic situation that is not good, stagnant, where there are difficulties in finding something, salaries are low, where the businessman He forgot that workers’ salaries must be improved. In the outbreak there were businessmen who raised workers’ salaries, some up to 500 thousand pesos, and now they are being stingy because the scare has passed and they have returned to the same adventures. The social outbreak did not ask for a socialist revolution, what it asked was that they not screw people so much, that they not abuse, that they not speculate, that they stop giving miserable pensions and bad salaries, the demand was that they not go so far over the line. That has not been answered.
Is the social movement and civil society retreating?
Of course. There is a very hard hit social movement. One, because of the costs that the social outbreak left, because it left social costs, it cannot be denied. In that is also the resignification of the outbreak. Two, the pandemic, which was devastating, especially for the weakest social sectors in having the capacity to resist it. Three, the economically recessionary period is coming, the rise in inflation, speculation with inflated prices. There were three tremendous impacts for the people, for the social movement. I see that people are more than anything worried about how to survive, how to overcome these situations. There may be awareness of the problems, but no energy to activate, speaking massively, widely.
What is your position regarding political reform? Because there are debates about percentages of representation, how much a party should have, whether small parties or large parties, fragmentation in Congress.
What they are discussing are things that solve the problems of political parties. There is no reform to the political system, in any way. Specific things are being discussed, whether 3 or 5 percent, whether the rebels, whether fragmentation, are issues that interest the parties and parliamentarians. The substance is not being discussed. There is so much to discuss regarding the political regime, participation, decentralization, presidentialism, the role of regional governments. Look, we have not rescued anything from the constituent process where these things were raised. It is true that in that process errors were made, misplacements, I buy all that, but I do not buy the “fake news” campaign, of distortions, of taking advantage of errors to discredit the process, because there were issues that were exposed such as the strengthening of the regions, such as decentralization and people’s participation. The issue of justice was raised, we cannot continue having the justice system that we have, where there are doubts about what the prosecutor’s offices do, doubts about the decisions of judges, where it is proven that politics is involved, justice is politicized and people distrust It all has to do with the fact that there is an institutional degradation that has been occurring in the country and we must take seriously the great issues and problems that lie ahead of us, and not get into the pit of mediocrity because we are deteriorating as a country. We must not lose sight of the fact that we are facing an extremely challenging world and if one wants, as a small country, to seek development for its people, we must have a different, fundamental vision of confronting degradation.
