[ad_1]
Ahead of the decision that the general council of Evópoli will take this Saturday in front of the plebiscite of October 25, Senator Felipe Kast confirms that he will vote in favor of the Approval. “There are those who believe that being for the Approval is naive, because it would be a way to validate the violent, I believe that it is just the opposite. By approving, we are telling the violent activists that in the face of conflicts we opt for democracy, not violence, ”he assures. By the same option would be the ministers Ignacio Briones and Gloria Hutt, the former minister Gonzalo Blumel and the former minister of the community Hernán Larraín Matte.
The parliamentarian and former presidential champion of Evópoli also affirms that the mayor of Las Condes, Joaquín Lavín, made a serious mistake in his attempt to capture the center vote, declaring himself a Social Democrat.
Have you already decided your position in front of the plebiscite?
I have come to the firm conviction that we must vigorously confront the violent activists who seek to destroy our democracy and that the best way to take away their legitimacy and to be able to strengthen the path traveled during the last 30 years is to approve the next October 25. In fact, because I reject violence, I am going to vote I approve. Today we have a conflict in our country and we have two ways to resolve it. One is through the violent dispute that some want to impose, and the other is through democratic dialogue, we will always be for the second. Today it seems that the moderates do not have a meeting space and that is a good business for the radical sectors. The Approval allows building that meeting place. This is an opportunity, just as it was in the early 1990s, to leave the radicals out of decision-making.
In January, 59% of the members of the general council of Evópoli were for the Approval. How do you think that percentage is today, when several leaders of your party have opted for Rejection?
It is difficult to know what will happen in the Council. A large majority believe that there are legitimate arguments for both positions and, probably, the healthiest thing is that there is freedom of action. That is at least my position. What we have to do is add those who are for the Rejection so that on October 26, if the Approval wins, we can make a great unitary and joint command to go out to defend our ideas. It is a great opportunity for Chile Vamos to play the offensive and offer Chile a project for the future that can be reflected in the constitutional debate that opens next year.
In the last presidential election, as a candidate for Evópoli, you proposed a liberal Constitution for Chile, but now your party is divided between approving and rejecting a constitutional process. Have you lost influence and leadership within Evópoli?
It’s not like that. When at the beginning of the year the party made the decision to be for the Approval, and I was in favor of that, my disposition was always freedom of action, I was never about to impose the thinking of a majority on a minority that can have legitimate arguments. All those who are for the Rejection in Evópoli are for a new liberal and democratic Constitution. What happens is that they have legitimate doubts about the mechanism to build it. We always argue that the mechanism was within the current institutional framework. But on November 15, after the very deep conflict that our democracy experienced, we chose an alternative mechanism, a mechanism that has the virtues of replicating the operating standards that Congress has, even with the high quorums of 2/3. What the entry plebiscite seeks is to give us the opportunity to heal many of the wounds we have from the past and to be able to talk, debate with great passion, but also with great respect, about a new text that can unite Chileans.
Did Evópoli miss the opportunity to show that it is an alternative to the UDI and RN?
I insist that one of the wealth of Evópoli is its diversity, it will be the Council that defines it, it will not be my decision. The right thing to do is promote ideas, but without imposing it on anyone. There is nothing more democratic than allowing the possibility of choosing within democratic margins, because on November 15 we pointed out that the Approval and Rejection were equally legitimate and valid options. If we want to represent a modern right, we cannot impose on our militants a specific roadmap against two options that are valid.
What do you think of the sayings of Joaquín Lavín, who defined himself as a social democrat, even though he later qualified those statements?
Chile’s complex and challenging moment in terms of political definitions demands a minimum of seriousness and intellectual honesty on the part of political leaders. To some it may seem anecdotal, even cunning, to have declared himself a Social Democrat. It seems serious to me. Pyrotechnics and communicational occurrences are part of the problem and not the solution. Each of the elements that Mayor Joaquín Lavín expressed about the construction of a just city, which is something that we have been pushing hard from Evópoli, the power to reform the Sename, all the social objectives, we have raised them from the liberalism, no it is necessary to abandon one’s own convictions to aspire to a more just Chile.
In your opinion, was Lavín’s cunning, opportunism or a misstep?
I think that Lavín was wrong, because he was very light in his statements and weighted more the communicational effect than the virtue of his convictions. Cultural debate is taken very lightly, a healthy and responsible debate of ideas.
[ad_2]
