The former government spokesman for Michelle Bachelet, former PS, former governor, former Chilean ambassador to Argentina and today a deputy for the UNIR movement of the Broad Front, Marcelo Díaz, said that she I would have handled everything Chile is currently experiencing better, just over a year after the so-called social outbreak of October 18; pandemic included.
One year after the signing of the agreement that allowed the plebiscite that opened the door to the drafting of a new Magna Carta, through a Constitutional convention, Díaz speaks with BBCL.
-During the social outbreak, there was talk of “it is not 30 pesos, but 30 years”, which includes the Bachelet government, but, if this same social crisis had occurred during that period, do you consider that the former president would have handled it better way?
-In the beginning, the government’s agenda took care of that, that we had advanced in economic growth, but we had not managed to close the inequality gaps. The agenda had three vectors, greater equality, fewer abuses and fewer unjustified privileges, hence the probity agenda, the Tax Reform, the Education Reform or the Pension Reform, which was rejected in the Chamber of Deputies. We said it in the Government, there is an express statement, I say it as a spokesperson: ‘the objective of the Bachelet program is to increase the levels of social inclusion because otherwise we are sitting on a time bomb.’ Said and done.
-That sensitivity was present, in the President’s program, which many times did not have the active collaboration of her own coalition and, by the way. with fierce opposition from the right wing and from businessmen, who I think many today regret not having supported the constituent process that we started. It was in the sensitivity of the president herself as the reason that motivated her to run for the second term.
-In short, do you think she would have handled this situation better?
-Yes I think so. First, because of its connection with reality and its understanding of what the debt was with the Chileans, the inequity, the abuse, the injustice. That was his goal. Let’s not forget that President Piñera said a couple of days before the social outbreak that Chile was an oasis. She would never have said a thing like that, she always said that here there is an unfair reality that we have to change, for that she returned to a second government.
Only in government
-Do you consider that the ruling party parties are more organized than the opposition in the face of what is to come?
-There are fewer actors, that makes things easier. They have less nuances and the truth is that I don’t see as many differences as those that sometimes exist between the UDI and Evópoli, I think they are the same matrix, there is a differentiation within RN. But, although under the gaze of the pacts they appear less dispersed, they have a very deep ideological fracture. In addition, having to take charge, and that will be in the campaigns, of being the support of one of the worst governments that Chile has had, as is the current one, to the point that they have abandoned it on several projects and occasions. There is no political team that is capable of ordering the coalition behind the government’s agenda. There is no embarkation of the right-wing parties or parliamentarians to support their government because they consider it a drag.
– Has Piñera left his MPs alone or have MPs left Piñera alone?
-The first thing that happened is that the Government failed to connect with Chile, prior to the outbreak we have a collection of statements from its ministers that showed how far from reality and the state of mind of Chilean society, a government that lived in a bubble . He was never able to tune in, until today, we saw them in the 10% debate, as the right-wing parliamentarians repeated the same thing as us, that the Government’s measures to support citizens in the pandemic have been insufficient and ineffective and that for that has had to support the two withdrawals that have been approved in the Chamber. First, the government bubble that did not allow it to connect with Chile, this socioeconomic homogeneity even in President Piñera’s cabinet. Faced with the inability of the Government to offer a clear route to face the social outbreak, such as the pandemic, the parliamentarians decide to throw away the sponge and leave the government.
-So, Piñera is alone?
-Yes, I don’t even see that the call for unity in your coalition has had any effect.
-How is the opposition regarding the election of constituents? Better than before the Plebiscite?
-I think so, but only if we are able to understand the meaning of the resounding vote in favor of the constitutional convention, because there were doubts given the confusion of names, the lack of information, the precariousness of the campaign, it would be understood by citizens or was going to have a distance of that magnitude with respect to the mixed convention. That means that people are aware of what they were voting, consequently there is a very clear mandate to hope that in that convention they will not be the same as always and there will be renewal and replacement.
-Do you consider that citizens today have confidence in supporting constitutional candidates who represent parties?
-There are people who do and people who don’t. Probably, there is not yet full awareness of the impact that the social outbreak is going to cause in the evaluation and electoral support for the different political forces, that is not cleared with the Plebiscite vote, because there it was dual. Therefore, the challenge of the pacts is twofold. We understand that a dispersion of the lists in the field of approval are representation of the right, but, at the same time, we have to take charge of the distrust that exists towards political parties and from there act with generosity. We have said that the lists should be opened up to 70% for representatives of the social and independent world or territorial leaders because there is a good part of the movement that opened this constituent process, from its own will. Citizens want to play a leading role and not a spectator.
-But, the Constitutional Convention is chosen as if it were a Congress, with collectives as a base, so do the parties have a real disposition to open up or is it a pose?
-It is that believing that is a huge mistake. If the parties are not capable of opening spaces for the participation of the social world, they can find an electoral rejection and meager voting, that is why we must read the first message that the citizens gave us when voting 80% in favor of the constitutional convention . There is a mandate that if the parties ignore they will be punished.
-Do you consider that the figure of Beatriz Sánchez, her past as a presidential candidate of the FA, gives her advantages over other cards?
-The FA is going to decide what its scheme will be to face the presidential challenge, I have no doubt that Beatriz Sánchez was not only a tremendous presidential candidate, but also a tremendous leader of the FA. She has all the attributes to lead another presidential candidacy, she is the purest expression of the Frenteamplismo, therefore it is a very valid letter if the FA decides that she should lead the presidential challenge on our part.
-But, if there is an agreement, how should that link with the rest of the opposition?
-Super simple. Program and Primary, in that order, because if there is a programmatic agreement, then it is reasonable for all those who subscribe to the same Government Program to have a Primary.
Marcelo Eduardo Díaz Diaz, born in February 1971, says he has his future open and like every politician he is going for the biggest prize: to be the next President of the Republic.
Our comments are a space for conversation and debate. We welcome constructive criticism, but we reserve the right to remove comments or to block users aggressive, offensive O abusive.