[ad_1]
A positive analysis on the situation of his party makes the president of the PC, Guillermo Teillier. According to him, the strategy that the community has followed after differentiating itself from the rest of the opposition forces that signed the agreement for a new Constitution, has given good results and, even, to its main presidential figure, Daniel Jadue. In that sense, he recognizes that it is favorable not to be together with the sector that today was grouped in the “Constituent Unit”, after the failed negotiations for the primaries and that he calls “old Concertación”. He adds that he would like to approach the Broad Front.
In addition, it refuses to call, like other sectors, for there to be no violence in the protests.
Some blamed the CP for the failed governor negotiations. Do you take criticism?
We were invited to discuss a default and primaries agreement for governors. That was the mold and we watched it with interest, we agreed to talk and each party began to establish which were the regions where they wanted to have a certain privileged treatment. And that was the case until shortly before closing the discussion.
Why didn’t they join the Constituent Unit?
Curiously, the PRO called us, not the PS, the PR, the PPD or the DC. What the president of the PRO said is that we had to join and I said let’s talk, but he said that he was already going to the Servel and he was going to join whatever happens. That is not how things are done.
Did the PRO betray you?
I do not want to objectify, but anyone can tell what that means, when there is not even the decency to go talk. Unity for Change continues to exist and we will bring a list of councilors.
How do you see the “isolated” position the PC was in?
The FA was also isolated. There is a pact that is the Concertación, the old Concertación that reappears with some who had left as ME-O. We do not feel isolated.
What do you think about the “old Concertación” reappearing?
They got together again, but I don’t know if they are in a rebirth trend. Rather, they are in decline and that is going to say the polls. It was not comfortable to be there, it does not mean that we cannot talk or reach agreements, but 30 years is something that weighs.
Does the sea bother you?
Although the monkey dresses in silk, the monkey stays.
Is it favorable for the PC to differentiate itself from that sector, then?
After having differentiated ourselves from the pact for Peace, the party has done well and it shows with its possible presidential candidate. Then yes. People want to be clear that they are not going to be deceived and the PC in that remains with some consequence.
Does the position suit you?
When Daniel Jadue appeared as a possible candidate, several of the new Concertación came out to flirt with him. And the more they criticized, the more Jadue rose in the polls. It also happens that after the agreement of the primaries did not take place, Jadue went back up. Something is saying that.
After the failure of the negotiations, they began to speak of a rapprochement with the FA. He would like?
Of course I would. Now, that is in a process. In both sectors there is a willingness to reach political agreements, pacts are more complex. In the Concertación they can do it because almost everyone thinks the same. With them it was difficult to reach agreements, they left us tied up and that is not our purpose.
Will they create a “left pole”?
What we have proposed is an anti-neoliberal pole. We are not saying that with the FA we will form a leftist nucleus.
Can Jadue go to the first round?
I do not know if there is a will of the other forces to primary. If it does not exist, we would have to go to the first round.
And now do you see likely to have a primary of all?
It may be difficult, but nothing is set in stone.
Does Jadue create discomfort?
People who are anti-communists undoubtedly find it uncomfortable. Also because it is a symptom that something new is happening in Chile.
To be clear, does the PC condemn human rights violations in Venezuela?
We have questioned them since the first Bachelet report appeared. We made it clear that we condemn human rights violations. What we did was take a different look at the report, because it did not consider the attacks sufficiently to destabilize that government. But condemning human rights violence and following a process to uproot that is fine. I would like it to be like that in Chile.
Isn’t making this criticism to give space to qualify the PC as “ambiguous” about human rights?
No. What has to be seen is the conduct here in Chile, because we are not responsible for human rights in Venezuela, forgive me! The one that has to answer is the Venezuelan government.
The protests have returned to almost a year since 18-O. Does it make sense to demonstrate so close to the plebiscite?
That depends on the wills of millions that take to the streets. To say that someone sinisterly intends to go violently into the street, I think that does not exist. There are confrontations between the desire to demonstrate and repression. Do you think I like fires in supermarkets, in Metro stations? No, but those things happen.
Could the acts of violence affect the plebiscite?
No. The only thing left to those who are against the constitutional process is to say that there is generalized violence and that, therefore, the conditions are not there. Nor has there been any such large demonstration in Plaza Italia, maybe on the 18th, I don’t know, but so far it is very minor compared to the above.
Would you call for there to be no violence in the demonstrations so close to the plebiscite?
It is that that can be taken as a double discourse. Because if the government and repressive forces such as the Carabineros consider that the protesters are violent, then if I say that there should not be violence, it means that I say do not go out to demonstrate and that I will not say, because the right to demonstrate has to progress. What I could say is that they try by all means to do it peacefully, that is.
But do you condemn the violence that has occurred in Plaza Italia?
This violence is very rare. Here we want to connote a state of violence that I do not believe exists. So how am I to condemn a thing that was so minor. They tell me ‘look at the damage that some of them did’, but I say: look, Ponce Lerou reduced his fine by about 60 million dollars. Those are indeed destruction. Before starting to condemn just like that, all the causes of things.
The Progressive Convergence condemned the violence. Why not the CP?
Because just as it becomes a synonym for violence with social manifestation, we cannot condemn social manifestation.
