[ad_1]
“The 1988 Plebiscite was very emotional, emotionally very played, with very well done and very marked propaganda stripes, which defined the vote. It was absolutely clean, despite the tensions typical of the time, without violence, no votes were missing. That had to do with the sharpness of the alternatives. Everyone knew what it meant to vote YES and what it meant to vote NO. That gave peace of mind, there was an itinerary, in both options ”, he says.
Distant for Cardemil from what is observed now.
“Today that clarity between the alternatives does not exist, nobody knows very well what the Approval, Rejection, Mixed or Constitutional Convention means. Politicians have not been able to explain the options, ”he explains.
Former President of National Renovation, a former deputy of the same party, today Cardemil is an advisor in the Seremi de Hacienda del Maule and assures that he does not want to play an active role in politics again, although he leaves a window open, which he confirms at the end of this interview.
Today, one day from Constitutional Plebiscite, which will be defined between the Approval and the Rejection, the comparisons have emerged between the past and the present and Cardemil knows it and even responds again on the criticism of the delay in the delivery of the results in 1988, something that still it is a source of conspiracy theories.
“If it was not recognized, it would have been a coup,” he sums up. Cardemil on the night of October 5, ’88.
“I was a witness of faith”
-32 years ago you were undersecretary of the Interior. How was the 1988 Plebiscite prepared?
It was prepared to test any attempt to cheat, because the electoral roll was impeccable. The election was by exit vote, clean, all the means were present, the commandos could carry their calculations, the electoral law that governed, even more accurate than now, because the modifications have made it more uncertain, insecure, due to this register inflated we have auto enrollment. There was very important propaganda, absolute clarity in its result, which was recognized. At that time, the undersecretary of the Interior had an important role because he was the notary of the Plebiscite, when the results were in, he had to sign, whether the YES or NO wins. That has changed, there is a Servel with much more autonomy and power, it is giving the results.
-But, under that role, at night, when there was criticism for the delay of the result, you were the face of those questions …
I understand the criticism, there was tension, but one had to fulfill its mission. I was a minister of faith and I saw the results when they were there. All the important, decisive numbers of the votes, the preliminary results were with very few tables, that worried me. Therefore, I gave them when all the tables were there and the official result, the one I had to give. I could have made myself famous by informally giving the press the result, which everyone knew, but that was not the idea. I was a public official and had to fulfill my obligation as minister of faith, as a notary.
-However, it was still delayed …
The story is known, the President of the Republic, General Pinochet, was not just any candidate for the Presidency, he was the candidate of the Governing Board subject to plebiscitary approval and the people said no. So the President asked me to first inform the members of the Board, in a meeting in which I was not, that it was delayed a couple of hours and that delayed the results by a couple of hours, in which no vote was missing. It initiated and opened an exemplary transition, although some today deny it, it gave Chile prosperity. That was what was done that night, in a way that honors the Military Government.
-But, it was still very stressful for you …
How could there not be tension, of course there was, but public officials are here to endure tension and do things properly, calmly and correctly.
Regretful?
-Would you have liked not to be in that position that night?
You have to assume the positions you have to have and do your best. What I did that day, in awareness of the point of view that my role was well done and I would do it again. It was necessary to put the signature to a defeat of the Governing Board, which opened a transition process, perfectly free, he had that assurance. You had to do it and hand over power according to what the Constitution ordered. The best thing that the Military Government did, in terms of the Plebiscite, was to provide precise and clear alternatives.
-But, like it or not, you were the face of the results and criticism that night …
After being undersecretary of the Interior, I was a candidate for deputy 5 times and a candidate for senator once, open-minded, with the people and on the ground. I was elected with the largest majorities, so people are very clear whether or not I was a monster. People know when you act in good faith or not, the rest are criticisms that you have to listen to, but I doubt that the subject could have been handled better than it was that night. I don’t see how.
-A lot has been said about the meeting that took place that night in La Moneda, of the commanders in chief with General Pinochet.
I was with the car running and with the folder under my arm, very impatient, like everyone else, to then leave from La Moneda to Diego Portales, to give the results, which, at that moment, I had them two hours ago. I was not at that meeting of the commanders in chief, but I found out later from versions. Basically what was due was done, supporting the institutional life that was opening up.
-Of course, but the statement of General Fernando Matthei, who recognized the triumph of the NO, was key anyway before entering that meeting.
Yes, but he was one of the voters of the candidate who lost, so he had every right to do it when he arrived at La Moneda, there is no problem in that, on the contrary, I think it helped to lower the tension. He had spoken minutes before with Don Sergio Onofre Jarpa, with whom he had a great friendship and appreciation. She had told him and he was going on a TV show. I told him ‘Don Sergio the Plebiscite was lost and I am waiting for the meeting of the commanders in chiefs to go and give the results.’ So he knew, as did the Chilean ambassador to the US or the Vatican, that they had called me anyway.
-So, as you say, there were several who knew about it, including Sergio Onofre Jarpa, who was going to a TV program and could even have said it on the air …
He was not undersecretary of the Interior, but he could say: ‘I know that the NO won in the results and that the Government is going to recognize this in a moment more, because at this moment the meeting of the commanders in chief is taking place, in which the losing candidate is informing his constituents. ‘
-But, if something else had been decided at that meeting we wouldn’t be talking about this now, would we?
That would have been a coup, ignoring the results of a clean, clear, transparent Plebiscite, would have meant a coup, a lie, an electoral fraud, therefore, another government in fact. But let it be clear, I never heard from a commander-in-chief or from officials or members of the Army the strange idea. Nobody thought about not knowing the results of the Plebiscite, it was impossible. The system was made not to do that.
-However, during that meeting, was the idea of not recognizing the results placed on the table, or not?
No, I have never heard it, there are clear versions. Nobody raised that. What I understand is that the Minister of the Interior said that the YES had lost, getting a large number of votes and that, at the worst moment of the Military Government, it was important to take into account. That’s true. I would like that now, that if you lose the Rejection, you lose with a large number of votes. That is an objective, because that produces a moderating effect, an impossibility of passing the machine. It is not here the possibility of establishing a Bolivarian State, O’higginiano or the Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front or the Broad Front. No, be careful, this is a democratic state that has a constitutional history since 1828.
Current plebiscite and political future
-Beyond the options at stake, what are your expectations for this Sunday’s Plebiscite?
It is an important point in political history, whatever apprehensions one may have of how this plebiscite was reached. There are not many in Chile. It must be dealt with in the most expeditious, clean and efficient way possible. I hope it works, about participation? It is an open question, the vote is voluntary, the fears of the pandemic, especially in regions with a delicate situation, are real. I think that point, especially in the constitution of the table, because the riskiest participation is that of members. Knowing the Chileans, I think the day after tomorrow they will get up and make their decision, depending on what they see of the normality of the day. I hope that fewer people vote than in the last presidential election.
-Do you remain active politically? Your address has always been RN
As a former president of my party, I have a seat on the political commission and a permanent seat. I am very hurt and affected by the situation that exists today, in which there are voices of Approve and Rejection that, at times, confuse. A leadership that is for the approval, for the most part, and a militancy that is for the rejection and that worries, because a division has been generated. I hope that the day after the Plebiscite, there will be a union exercise, not only in RN but in all of Chile Vamos, because we are experiencing a political crisis.
-Will you have a more active role in what is to come?
I have been asked a lot, in my Maule Region or in Santiago and Providencia, if I win the Approval, that I be a candidate for conventional, but my answer is that I am for the Rejection and I cannot be with a double hat. If I’m for the Rejection, I don’t want there to be a convention, so I’m not going to run for conventions. But, there you have to see two things, the conventional of the center right have to have certain characteristics. They have to have votes, I have my years, I have been a deputy, people have criticism of politicians, especially of the transition, therefore, we must see if there is support. My party and Chile Vamos says there is. Also, you have to have clear ideas and experience and constitutional knowledge, I have that.
Yes or NO, I approve or I reject, before with a pencil lead, today with a blue paste pencil, alcohol gel and a mask, one with a known result and the other with a constitutional history to write.
[ad_2]
