Nearly 50 years after Pinochet’s coup, Chileans gave a majority to the far right to rewrite the constitution inherited from the dictatorship. Why do you think it happened?
Chile is a country that throughout history has been characterized by the search for institutional mechanisms – and when this did not happen, at a considerable cost – to solve the conflicts that exist in society. This was the case with the social explosion of 2019, which in practice led to an institutional process where the political world transversally agreed to create the conditions to respond to the demands of citizenship. This had already been the case with the restoration of democracy in 1990, when there were political forces pushing for a plebiscite. This led to a peaceful transition to democracy.
But my question is related to the fact that voters gave the extreme right, the one who didn’t even want to rewrite the constitution, the opportunity to do so…
I have the impression that what happened in Chile is a result of necessity, as in other parts of the world. Part of the challenges of democracy is that political power needs to better understand what is happening with citizenship. I think the process that was created with this constitutional process, which was rejected in a first phase last year, is an important part of that. What citizenship aims at is to respond to those demands which are mainly, but not exclusively, related to social rights, to guaranteeing a home so that people can develop their life projects and their community project.
But, I insist, a little over a year ago Chile celebrated the inauguration of progressive president Gabriel Boric. And now we’re on the other side of the political spectrum…
I think the change is less swaying than previously thought as there is a new element to consider. There are four million new voters in Chile. We went from an electoral system that was voluntary, where there was registration on the electoral roll, but people could decide whether or not to vote, to compulsory voting. So from last year to now, we’ve had nearly four million new voters. This also assumes new requirements that are probably not that new, but behave in a different way. I think one of the most important things in Chile’s future will be to respond to this, to the dynamism of these new voters who have been on the sidelines of electoral processes for years when they voted voluntarily. Out of 12 million voters, we are talking about a third of new voters who pose a challenge to Chilean democracy. So I think it’s not so much the discussion about the commuter nature that can exist in Chilean society, but more the need to understand with greater clarity what’s behind the demands of citizenship, which I think is the challenge that democracies face today face in the world, namely a better dialogue with citizens.
The previous draft constitution, adopted in a referendum, was drafted by a large number of independents and was considered progressive. Do you think the changes you were looking for were too radical?
It is not for me as Secretary of State to say whether the project was radical or not. What I can say is that the procedure was democratic and that it was freely decided whether or not to approve the text. And the most important thing is to respect democratic procedures.
A referendum on the new text will also be held in December…
Precisely. It will be a new process and once again the citizens of Chile will have to decide whether this constitutional text, which will be presented to them after discussion in the coming months, is sufficient or not. But in any case, I think Chile’s challenge, apart from the constitutional text, is to create a mechanism that responds to the demands of citizenship. Especially in the field of social rights, democracy and institutions, which fundamentally guarantee people’s discussion and participation.
The president depended on amending the constitution to implement a series of measures in his program. It does not have a majority in parliament, for example it has not been able to approve the tax reform. Do you still have the option to make the desired changes?
I think so. It is very important to create the conditions and the will for dialogue. For example, pension reform, one of the structural pillars of Boric’s government, is part of an agenda that is not unique to this administration. Pension reforms have been discussed in Chile for at least ten years. So if this reform does not take place, it is not the government that is in trouble, but the political world in general that is unable to respond to the demands of citizenship. So I think the challenge today is to find big majorities and that requires a lot of political dialogue if you don’t have a majority. It’s not about running the government program, it’s not about that, it’s about meeting the demands of citizenship.
What are the priorities now?
I think that both tax reform and pension reform will continue to be an important part of the agenda, as will health care reform.
But tax reform has already failed once, right?
Yes, but that’s what was said. There is no end to the need for reform. What is happening is that it has to be done in a different way, in dialogue with some and with others, counting on the necessary majorities. But it is clear that tax reform is important to finance a package of social measures, whether they are provided for by a constitution or a law. But it is important to create the conditions to finance them.
President Boric was in Brasília for a meeting on regional integration. Is this also a gamble for Chile?
We believe in integration in multiple dimensions, both economic and political. It is an important part of the future of the Southern Cone and Latin America in general. That is why we participate in all bodies that promote this integration, because it not only promotes democratic values, but also strengthens trade in a small country like ours and exchanges with other countries. And this also strengthens national interests themselves. Integration is an agenda that will always be a priority for Chile.
Boric is one of the few leftist presidents critical of the situation in Venezuela or Nicaragua…
I think our foreign policy, and the president is the driver of foreign policy, has been very consistent. We are defenders, from our country and in international organizations, of democracy and the defense of human rights. Now even more so as a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council. These are basic principles for us. It happens, for example, in the case of Ukraine.
Does Chile support Ukraine against the Russian invasion?
We are one of the few countries in Latin America to do this. Indeed, President Boric has already spoken to President Zelensky, our parliament has also met with him, all via video conference, of course. Precisely in defense of these principles, the sovereignty of the states, the humanitarian cooperation that our country has offered and which we believe is fundamental, and in every statement that Chile can make in multilateral bodies, it has also done to vigorously defend the invasion. condemn .
Next semester there will be the CELAC summit of the European Union. Is rapprochement with the European Union also important for Chile?
We are about to sign the Association Agreement with the European Union precisely because it seems to us that, from our point of view as a country, but also regionally, the search for mechanisms of understanding with the European Union is key. Our relationship with Europe has always been fundamental.
And with Portugal, how are relations?
We now come to the political consultations on the mechanism that exists between the two countries at bilateral level, for the revision of cooperation agendas. Portugal is a country that is very important to us. Chile is the country receiving Portugal’s second largest investment in the Southern Cone, the first being Brazil. Portugal has also been very generous with Chile, for example with regard to the forest fires we have had in the summer. It was one of the countries that rushed to work with us and we are working on an agenda related to these phenomena and the climate crisis. We agree with Portugal on the need for an energy transition, which seems to be key, in green hydrogen, in the possibility of exporting lithium. And also, another thing we agree on is the feminist agenda, especially in foreign policy. I think it is a democratic necessity today to understand that gender equality is not just the number of women, but material equality in the economic field. They are the hardest hit by the climate crisis, for example. And then there are the underlying challenges, our political and democratic systems.
Similar?
We are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the coup and next year Portugal will celebrate the anniversary of the Carnation Revolution. Our celebration focused on three concepts, which I would say are key: memory, democracy and the future. Because we understand that it is impossible to rethink democracy today, the challenges we face, if we do not learn from the traumatic experiences of the past. We join Portugal in that of the past, of building memory. And we cannot think about these themes without projecting into the future as well. And that intersects with all the challenges political systems have today.
Do you think there was no construction of memory in Chile?
We had recognition regarding the violation of human rights, political imprisonment and torture. But memory is a permanent exercise. And I think we have a duty, thinking of future generations, to never forget and look back at what happened so it doesn’t happen again.
Is a new Pinochet possible in Chile?
I hope not, because I hope that no democracy has to go through the many traumatic experiences that many countries in Latin America and also in Europe went through in the 20th century. In the 21st century, we say to these experiences “never again” and we think that a democracy is the best system that guarantees rights for all.
Source: DN
