[ad_1]
The ruling party is asking all sectors to condemn acts of violence and human rights violations no matter where they come from. In the case of the Pío Nono Bridge, this has not happened from the center-right side …
I think that what corresponds is, first of all, to repudiate what happened at the Pío Nono Bridge. It is clear, and that was quickly determined by the courts – that is why he left the official in preventive detention – that there was an excess of the powers that the law gives to the police to put order. And that has to be immediately repudiated, because we cannot allow the abuse of power, because it goes against the rule of law … At the same time, there must be a clear message, not defending the institution of Carabineros, but defending principles with which all citizens agree. We all agree that the only thing violence does is limit our freedom. And that no government can accept. Therefore, more than a defense of the institution, I think that what the government should have done is a defense in principle. And these principles are fulfilled through the police … Faced with what happened in the Pío Nono Bridge, what happened must be condemned, because there is a police abuse that is outside the law, and that is why this official is formalized. But secondly, there is a mission for the government: to stop the violence and restore order and security. When one hears the government supporting the institution of the Carabineros, it is a mistake … This is not being in favor or against the Carabineros.
Why is it a mistake? What effect does this government position have?
Because what unites us to the vast majority of Chileans is that nobody wants the streets to be in the hands of anarchists, drug traffickers or violent mobs. For the same reason, if one appeals that the mission of a government is to establish security, through the institution of the police, that makes much more sense to Chileans that finally the Carabineros is in a job they have to do, because the law establishes it.
In your opinion, why is a reform or modernization of the Carabineros not advancing? Numerous work commissions have been presented …
I think there has been little urgency on the subject. When the government took office, it did what it had to do: it formed a transversal commission, it reached a political agreement. I was on that commission. Mayors, parliamentarians from different sectors, the Public Ministry, and study centers participated. It ended with a document with 150 proposals. 90% of the work was, precisely, a reform and restructuring of the police, which was reflected in two bills, transparency and probity, and civil service career. That has taken a long time in Parliament … There are political sectors that complain when the Carabineros mismanage a procedure, but when it is necessary to improve the institution and reach agreements, they subtract or do not participate with their votes. One tends to think that, on the one hand, they want the Carabineros to continue under a legal structure so that, every time they make a mistake, they have an argument to weaken the institution. But the vast majority what they want is for us to have an institution that fulfills its mission in a better way.
You were part of a bicameral commission on Carabineros …
I was one of those who promoted, when Minister Blumel was present, a bicameral commission three months ago, which sought to reach a political agreement. Minister Blumel welcomed this idea, encouraged it, and we even reached an agreement between the presidents of the Chamber and the Senate. Parliamentarians from all parties were appointed, from the PC to the UDI, and we were going to start working just before the cabinet change took place, where Blumel left and Minister Pérez entered. There is an instance that has not been resumed and that should have been continued. The three topics that were to be worked on in that commission were: role of the police, creation of the Ministry of Public Security and role of private security. Not having continued with that work was a big mistake.
Do you think that the government put a brake on that by political decision or, rather, that work was simply stopped?
I don’t know why. I have made it known to the Minister of the Interior a couple of times. I don’t know if he perhaps has a different vision of what to do. The issue of security always requires a political agreement, because it is something that affects us all.
We are just over a week from October 18. The same government foresees that there may be acts of violence. Could that affect participation in the plebiscite?
Clearly, the pandemic plus violence on the streets is unattractive to many people. Perhaps the violent mobs and anarchist groups do not want any change, they do not want healing of a country, what they want is to generate hatred and chaos. That makes people less confident to vote. Now, if the police are going to be better or worse prepared after the Pío Nono issue, I think they should be prepared … Many have said that General Rozas should leave, but I think the other way around. When a general leaves the institution, 25 or 30 generals leave. And in two and a half years, 50 generals have left. If Rozas comes out, we would be talking about 70 generals, that is, several generations. That is very delicate, because an institution of almost 70 thousand people is going to be directed by people who were not prepared, by experience, to lead. And that can be a major crisis. Here you don’t have to indulge yourself in politics and you have to think about what is best for the country … By removing the director general, we are not going to prevent abuses from being generated. Even the worst that can happen is that there is more abuse, because there is less control.
