[ad_1]
When yesterday afternoon the independent deputy Fernando Meza argued in the commission in favor of the constitutional accusation against the Minister of the Interior, Víctor Pérez, what was feared days ago in La Moneda became a reality: that it would be difficult on Tuesday, when voting the libel in the Chamber, they will have the bulk of that group of opposition parliamentarians that the Government always resorts to to win votes in Congress and break the opposition majority. Moreover, in the Palace they try not to give up the possibility that Pérez will be saved and not be suspended from his functions as of that day, but they are already concentrating effort on strategy in the Senate.
In La Moneda they recognized that the scenario changed radically, and became adverse for Minister Pérez, from the own goal that implied playing the card of washing his hands of the responsibility that falls to him over Carabineros under the State of Emergency and “charging him the bundle” along with his defense partner, Mario Desbordes. Such was the level of criticism in the face of the far-fetched argument, that a few days later the defense had to back down and chose not to insist on that path.
But the erratic maneuver – they added in the Government – was not only “a sweet” for the opposition, since it gave new vigor to the accusation and ended up convincing many undecided, but also generated a not minor conflict within the Palacio, who have tried to lower the profile without much success.
The strong reprimand that Minister Pérez received from the President, Sebastián Piñera, due to the fact that he deployed said line of defense in an inconsistent manner, perfectly describes the mood inside La Moneda: there are some optimists that at the last minute The scenario will be reversed favorably on Tuesday, but many more hopeless about the fate that, they glimpse, the prosecution will have in Congress. The uneasiness goes beyond the figure of Pérez himself, because that mistake made by the minister left in check the design that the President installed with the last change of cabinet and with which he thought he could reach the last day of management.
The statements that both Minister Desbordes and the general director of the Carabineros, Mario Rozas, delivered before the commission that reviews the constitutional accusation, Mario Rozas, were the tombstone for Pérez, since both stressed that the Minister of the Interior is the civil responsible for the action of the uniformed police, a bond that is not broken or suspended even in a State of Emergency.
In the ruling party itself, they affirmed that the erratic move by Pérez’s defense undermined the credibility of any argument that has subsequently been made to “save” the minister. For this reason, the postponement of the vote in the Chamber to Tuesday, November 3 – originally it would be today – gave the Government a break and the possibility of having a couple of days to deploy government advisers in order to try to reverse the things, a mission that coincide in pointing out that it is almost impossible.
It does not favor La Moneda at all that this accusation – unlike the one against Jaime Mañalich, for example – is sponsored and “pushed” by the DC, precisely because it is in this party where the Government bets on the knockdowns and Pyrography of votes in their favor. Not only that, unlike on other occasions, on this issue the community seems to walk more united than ever, which has become terrible news for Palacio.
In the eyes of La Moneda, the fact that it is the DC that leads this accusation – and not a “hot head” party of the opposition, they said – would give a halo of “common sense” to the libel, which neutralizes the undecided. It should not be forgotten that the accusation against Mañalich was brought by the Frente Amplio and failed for various reasons, one of which was the pending accounts between sectors of the phalanx and the bloc of the Frenteamplismo.
Except for the deputy Jorge Sabag, from the DC they claimed to be “almost 100%” within the party and to this – they added – they would have added several of the independents that the Government traditionally has. Although Sabag’s votes, Pepe Auth or Pedro Velázquez are still in doubt, whether they would have obtained support for the accusation of Manuel Matta and Carlos Abel Jarpa. With Miguel Calisto, they said, negotiations are continuing.
In the DC they stated that the accusation against Pérez has a special meaning for the community and has been a determining factor for everyone to be “very involved” in the matter. This is the death of the 26-year-old Aníbal Villarroel, which occurred in the town of La Victoria on Sunday, October 18, as a result of two bullet wounds that he received in the midst of the commemoration of the first anniversary of the social outbreak.
In addition to the complaint filed by the family, there was one filed by DC itself – through its president Fuad Chahin – because Villarroel’s father had ties to the party and it was he himself who approached the headquarters of the collectivity to ask for help. “This in the context of the violation of human rights, derived from the lack of control on the part of the civilian responsible for the Carabineros,” they argued from the phalanx.
To be approved in the Chamber, the accusation needs 50% plus one of the votes of the deputies present that day. If there is full attendance, the threshold is 78 and, as Chile Vamos’ benches add up to 73 seats, La Moneda needs five wayward votes to wreck the libel. The problem is that the opposition’s calculator shows that they would have 80 aligned votes to approve the accusation and that they are expected to reach 82.
A clear sign of the “atmosphere” for the prosecution was what happened in the committee yesterday afternoon, where the report that recommended the Chamber to accuse was approved by 4 votes to 1 – by Deputy Joaquín Lavín León – to the Minister of the Interior.
In Congress it is commented that, in addition to the error made by Pérez’s defense, there are other factors that have given a second wind to the accusation, which at first generated several doubts and internal criticism in the opposition, to the point that in La Moneda were sure it would be a replica of what happened with Mañalich. The triumph of the Approve in the plebiscite has been an important incentive for the opposition to take care of the signals it gives, especially in terms of unity between its different political forces, thinking about the conversations that are carried out to resolve the dilemma of the list to the election of constituents.
This issue goes hand in hand with another, the project for a second withdrawal of 10% of the AFPs, which has La Moneda as or more complicated than with Pérez’s accusation.
In this scenario, they explained in the opposition, there would finally be a greater degree of awareness about the political value that the sector unit has for each of these issues and that, for the same reason, today no one wants to be singled out as the “breaker ranks ”, Something that has been transformed –they stressed– into no less pressure. Thus, it would be betting on avoiding major stumbling blocks, such as dropping the accusation against one of the emblematic figures of the Rejection and a right that was against the ropes with the result of the polls on the night of October 25.
The accusation
According to several people consulted in the opposition, the accusation against Pérez would have a higher level of consistency in its legal and political argumentation, which would neutralize the option that some of the usual off-hooks resort to the weakness of the libel in order not to vote in favor. This has been a transversal reflection, from the most conservative sectors to the most progressive within the opposition, which has set a hopeful precedent, as they affirmed in the benches these days.
Although they insist that the three chapters of the libel contain “so obvious” arguments, the strongest would be the first, of non-compliance with the law, “having stopped executing the laws on matters relating to public order. This case is linked to the minister’s action in the face of the truckers’ strike, where they accused that Pérez did not invoke the State Security Law and not even the anti-barricade law approved weeks before, in view of the road blockade that the union carried out during the pandemic.
This – they explained – motivated by the fact that the bulk of the leaders of the strike were related to the Government, including candidates of the ruling party in previous elections, such as José Villagrán or Sergio Pérez, part of the campaign command of the current Head of State.
The other two chapters refer to “having violated the Constitution or the laws, violating the fundamental right to equality before the law”, which describes the unequal treatment of Carabineros before protesters depending on whether or not they were inclined to the Government, which was evidenced most plausibly during the demonstrations for the Approval and Rejection. In this case, they added, “discretion would be at stake and not precisely arbitrariness, but as a whole, and as in the previous chapter, they would point to an ideological axis on the part of the head of the Interior”.
Lastly, “having stopped executing the laws and failing to exercise the corresponding hierarchical control over the bodies subject to their dependence,” based mainly on the dozens of complaints for the abusive actions of the uniformed police, and which took further flight later of the tragic episode of the Pío Nono Bridge, which left a 16-year-old seriously injured on the river bed, after being pushed by a police officer.
One of the defense arguments, which Minister Pérez has used, was based on the presentation of hundreds of complaints to about 4 thousand people to support the application and fulfillment of their role, which was described as “extremely weak.” In this case, they specified, not having denied the facts and only accused of being untidy would have become, to the detriment of the chief of staff’s aspirations, a “tremendous error.”
[ad_2]
