[ad_1]
At those moments she was mayor of the Metropolitan Region and, later, she assumed as government spokesperson. The current Minister of Social Development, Karla Rubilar, remember how you lived on October 18 last year. She acknowledges that cabinet ministers had special security at that time, that some in her environment conveyed concern to her about an eventual irruption to La Moneda, but that she did not believe it possible and rules out that presidential security has been at risk. It also admits “successes and errors” in the handling of the crisis.
What was the milestone that most marked you on October 18?
The milestone that marks the turning point is the burning of the Enel tower. When we saw the images of the tower, my main concern was whether there were people (…). What we went through was probably one of the hardest and most difficult experiences that any government could have had, and we are probably going to remember this in the reconstruction of history.
What was the atmosphere like in La Moneda at that time, what was the President saying?
I always saw the President very well, he was a man who was leading, making decisions and effectively commanding the decision of the state of emergency decree, extremely executive, talking a lot.
In terms of leading the government, what was the learning?
The political learning one has to have in these times is to try to connect with the underlying phenomenon and to try to see what is underneath. Always in crisis, one can be tempted to look at what is evident and I think that a government, whatever it is, should be able to have a deeper analysis and that is what we have to be able to build.
And how do they communicate? For example, the phrase “we are at war” or transmitting that there were people from abroad inciting the mobilizations in Chile …
As a government we had successes and mistakes, without a doubt. And within that learning, finally understand that in crisis the messages always have to be more of unity, of how to rebuild and get ahead, they are the messages that should predominate when one is on the edge (…). Everything that the President finally began to transmit as a common path, as a call to work together as an agreement, were great successes and were well received, and finally also with a leading role that I think was necessary from politicians, parliamentarians, of the Senate and the House. And, obviously, everything that could have finally contributed in one way or another to make it seem like we were on separate sides, obviously it’s a mistake. And that’s part of learning. On that I want to insist: the change in the story from October 18 of our government to the beginning, to that of November 12 in similar circumstances of violence, shows that there was learning and that there was continuous learning, that we still have a lot to do, but there was learning .
At some point the ministers could not go out into the streets, how were the security measures adopted?
Indeed, many people and I had to have police protection at some point, even near the house. But I didn’t stop doing anything that I thought I had to do. I kept going out to all the places I thought I needed to go. I was convinced that the challenge that citizens had finally imposed on us was that these were uncomfortable times and that it was necessary to be available to be summoned, finally, to be contrasted with the ideas (…). So, we did have security measures, many of us did have protection. But at least I didn’t stop doing anything I had to do, because I believed that was what it was about.
And was there fear that at some point the mobilizations would reach La Moneda? What will the safety rings be bypassed?
Look, I don’t know what was the evaluation that Interior had in any of the days regarding the evaluation itself of La Moneda. At least in my experience, as mayor of the Metropolitan Region, the primary security area, which is what everything that surrounds La Moneda is called, was an area that was very well guarded and that, in general, the feeling that one It is that if there is a safe place, indeed, it is the Palacio de La Moneda.
And was there never a risk of their entering?
I didn’t handle it. I do not know if in other information, obviously it can exist. Indeed, on October 25, with the largest march, many commented what could happen with more than a million people marching if they wanted to enter La Moneda. I was never afraid of that. Moreover, many times I argued during that day when I said that I believed that a great peaceful march was going to be held, that nothing was going to happen.
But there were people who were afraid …
They weren’t people from La Moneda, they were people who talked to me, those who work in the Intendancy. And I personally always had the confidence that this was a march that understood well what was behind it and, therefore, that fear that someone might have was not real.
And did they have any protocol prepared in case they entered the Palace?
I understand that it exists, but I don’t know it. I understand that it has always existed, not now.
It was said that there was even an operation prepared in case of having to remove the President with a helicopter …
I dont know. I understand that there are always operatives associated with the security of the Palace, but not that they have commented to me that it was ready.
Do you think the President’s security was at risk at some point?
I always had the confidence of the public and that we were not going to have to regret any event of this type. I must recognize that, if I have had something, it is trust in the public.
