[ad_1]
On Sunday, a part of the history of our country finally began to close. This, after the overwhelming triumph of the Approve and Constitutional Convention options, which exceeded even the most optimistic calculations. Forty years governed by an illegitimate Constitution, drawn up – literally – within four walls and signed by the dictator Augusto Pinochet Ugarte. And although it is true that it has undergone several modifications over time, the core, its base and principles remained intact. Hence, the massive demonstrations that took place from October 18 of last year on, had a common slogan: change the Constitution. The historic day that we are living – as important and exciting as the triumph of the NO in 1988 – had a great winner: citizens.
The signal of discomfort that people gave to the political class was clear and categorical. Chileans want a new Constitution drawn up by people who are democratically elected, independent and who represent the spirit and demands that started the social explosion. However – and as if they had not understood anything – since yesterday, Monday, the names that each party, without exception, wants to take to the constituent process, began to circulate. Former ministers, mayors and parliamentarians who cannot return to repost, faces of the elite. The usual ones.
There is no doubt that the gap between the political elite and the people was revealed on October 25. If something characterized the citizen demands, expressed as of October 18 of last year and then for the withdrawal of 10%, it was pressure from the street. The political world had only to accept, reluctantly in the case of the right, the popular will. Despite promises of cataclysm for the country, even President Piñera had to forget to veto the law. However, the political reactions of these first hours have pointed in the opposite direction. A government trying – almost shamefully – to get on someone else’s car, bankruptcy and recriminations crossed in Chile Vamos and the inability of the opposition to emit a signal of unity, not even at the time of victory.
President Piñera opted for the strategy of playing a role in the constitutional process to come, unfolding a story that tried to appropriate the origin of the plebiscite. Beyond the fact that this argument does not make sense to the people, the President put two points in the debate.
The first, his call for unity in the sector, something that seems impossible considering that, if the tension was already high before October 25, from that night we saw that the Chile Vamos parties took different paths, and what Looming is an obvious split between the more liberal wing and the hard right. To this will be added the decision that Joaquín Lavín will have to make, whose candidacy will not be sustained if he does not resign from the UDI, if he is not declared “persona non grata” first. And secondly, he tried to reinforce the idea of no to blank pageAn argument that will surely not have an echo in the debate.
If we already had a weak government – yesterday it reached 15% in Cadem – from now on we will have an inconsequential government. The President made the mistake of not even making his option go beyond the plebiscite, which is why he will surely lack citizen legitimacy to lead politically a process as complex as the one ahead.
But Piñera will have to make changes in his Government for the final stretch. It is not sustainable to maintain a team of ministers that has such a distance from the majority will expressed on Sunday. Víctor Pérez has the attitude, behavior and positions of the Chile that was buried – along with Pinochet – on Sunday. The same in the case of Allamand. And the right will have to make a deep reflection on whether, as Jacqueline Van Rysselberghe stated that night, “we are the 20%” and the UDI and Republicans “die with their boots on,” or try to understand what the electorate expressed so clearly. .
And other big losers will also have to question the distance they have with Chilean society and the new times. Evópoli, which, despite promising to become a modern right-wing party, ended up in the dark after switching to Rejection at the last minute and opposing the 10% beforehand. A sector of the business community that once again predicted that the triumph of the Approval would be a tragedy for Chile. Some media, especially television, that insist on bringing the same faces that distort popular representation – such as Marcela Cubillos, who seems to live in another country – and, of course, José Antonio Kast, who believes that our society is still stuck In the last century.
And the opposition and their chronic inability, which can lead them to make a wrong calculation of the result of the plebiscite and interpret that with this they have the race won. On Sunday night, like these two years, they were not even able to agree to deliver a unitary signal. It was easy and simple and they made it difficult and impossible.
It is clear that they will face next year – with seven elections, including the 155 constituents – divided into at least two blocks: Constituent Unit and FA-PC. The lack of understanding of what the citizens want, at the level of the leadership of the parties, is so dramatic that it was the mayors – in a transversal way – who made a call for unity again, without results so far.
It is also the time to worry – to take care, really – for the two countries that emerged on Sunday. One that represents a few, focuses on three or four communes, which voted for everything to remain the same, and the rest of Chile. Because if there is a way to represent inequality, it is like this.
If our political elite – everything from Kast to Teillier – does not soon understand the alert sent by 78% of Chileans, what we are going to have is a Constituent process captured by the parties, while society, the young people – who voted in favor of en masse – minority groups, our native peoples, remain as secondary actors. In that case, the bill they can pay will be large. And they will no longer be able to say “we didn’t see it coming.”
- The content in this opinion column is the sole responsibility of its author, and does not necessarily reflect the editorial line or position of The counter.
[ad_2]
