[ad_1]
The president of the Liberal Convergence Foundation, Juan José Santa Cruz, addresses the consequences that, in his opinion, could lead to those who want a new Constitution prevailing in the October 25 plebiscite. The former Christian Democrat and former Citizens assures that sectors that he describes as “extreme left” will seek to capture an eventual triumph of the Approve. “There is an obvious risk,” he warns, while defending the slogan of reject to reform.
Why choose Rejection?
I reject because I am a reformist. One advances on what has been built and does not constantly invent the country anew. That there is a constitutional reform process to be carried out, yes. But here the institutions had to operate. This process has a problem and it is that it has a lot of uncertainty. I am not moved by the fear of changing the Constitution, but the road is full of risks. There is an imposition of totalitarian groups that do not believe in democracy and do believe in violence.
What risks are you referring to?
One is tired of the permanent blackmail that the extreme left, the CP and the Broad Front, exert on our society and that has all the totalitarian profiles of a left-wing fascism, where they erect a moral authority that eliminates and invalidates the others. If he wins the approval, that sector will want to capture him, the left will exacerbate a totalitarian logic. So I think there is an obvious risk. In addition, my conviction is that the blank page does not know the history of Chile.
That the approval wins is synonymous with the establishment of a left-wing totalitarianism …?
No, but I say that is one of the risks. My vote for Rejection is a vindication of politics, of its parties, of the institutionality. The Constitution can be perfectly reformed from the current institutional framework. The Constitution is not a panacea. It does not guarantee anything.
You speak of a reform through the current institutional framework in the midst of an unprecedented crisis regarding its legitimacy. What value can that have after social outbreak?
I fully share that we are facing a devaluation and discredit of the institutions. But, in a way, they are the rules of the game that we have given ourselves. And those very institutions were the ones that reached an agreement to open this constituent process, instead of having assumed the responsibility that corresponded to them.
But do you think Congress had the legitimacy to do so?
Let’s see, I assure you that by winning approval and electing a constituent assembly, its representatives will be the same, in terms of correlation of forces.
In what sense does this suggest that the blank page does not know the story? If you say yourself that the Constitution is not a panacea.
I pose it in terms of what risks you want to run in a country. And when one starts from the blank page it is like not knowing everything that has been advanced, one always builds on what he wants to keep. Starting from scratch is a risk.
President Sebastián Piñera said that the road is not the most relevant at this time, but rather to discuss the contents.
I believe in democracy and its processes, therefore, it seems to me as legitimate to be for the Approval as for the Rejection, I do not disqualify anyone who is for one option or another. Now, I do believe that the path of Approval is wrong and I hope I am wrong. The possibilities of reform have always existed, another thing is the political will to carry out those reforms, and if not enough have been done, that is the responsibility of the political class.
And what would change?
Rather than go into detail, I think there are a number of reforms that are probably sensible today. And we must continue on the path that this country has been doing since 1990. The country has to agree on a better political system, there are economic changes that must also be made.
Why do you think the Rejection has been losing support in some sectors of the right? The mayor Joaquín Lavín gave him a blow last week, defining himself by the Approval …
Because I believe that one option is as legitimate as the other and they are not necessarily ideological.
According to the surveys and the definitions that are already known, the majority of the parties and citizens are about to change the Constitution. What will happen to the world of Rejection after October 25? Some prepare for defeat...
I hope this is not like the plebiscite of the year 88 in which society was marked by what one or the other thought. If a path of reforms is to be chosen, the logical thing is to try to build them together, I do not see why those who defend the Rejection could be marked or invalidated.
But how do you face that defeat? Because it’s politics too …
It is that I do not believe that politics after the plebiscite will be marked by Approval or Rejection. Policies are going to be built differently.
You have sought to represent the center, but if the current picture is maintained, the presidential one will be defined between two extremes: Daniel Jadue and Joaquín Lavín. How do you see it?
It is premature to think that it will only be those names. Political situations must be allowed to mature a bit. The political center, what it has suffered from is generous leadership and trying to interpret that sensible and moderate majority, which is a trend in the country. What is not true is that because someone classifies himself as a center, he represents the center. And that is more than seen. The former Concertación no longer represents that world. I believe much more in new leadership.
Like who?
People like Sebastián Sichel, for example. I would love to, he has the professional, human and political capacity to represent the center.
Have you discussed it with him?
Yes, of course, he laughs. He is very dedicated to the presidency of BancoEstado, but the other will be seen in due course.
[ad_2]
