[ad_1]
Communist Party deputy Karol Cariola says her community is going through key times for its future. Last week, they ended the XXVI congress of the party, in which they defined themselves as “feminists” and “anti-patriarchal”. Likewise, two days ago they began a historic process, in which their militants for the first time were able to vote for the members of the central committee, who, in turn, will be in charge of electing a new board of directors.
Cariola, however, rules out that she can assume a role in that direction and assures that it is the deputy Guillermo Teillier who must continue to lead the community.
The parliamentarian also maintains that the unity of the entire opposition must continue to be promoted in the face of the presidential challenge and, although she sees greater proximity to the Broad Front, she affirms that the door should not be “closed” to talk with sectors of the former Concertación, despite the fact that it launches its criticisms of that sector.
Are the new definitions of the PC a triumph for your generation?
It is a triumph for women, more than a generational issue. The PC, being a party that seeks to generate structural transformations, could not be left out of this type of definitions and we must also eradicate sexist practices within our ranks.
Should there be a change in the directive?
Without losing our essence as a Marxist party, we have made two definitions about the new national leadership. One is that it must be equal and the other is the intergenerational relationship.
For this reason, should the presidency be changed?
There is a common view of reaffirming the leadership of Guillermo Teillier. Understanding the challenges that come, at least in this period that leadership has to be maintained. But this is a definition of the next central committee, it does not depend only on me.
And could you join in?
I want to rule it out outright. My greatest contribution at this time is to continue assuming my commitment as a Member.
A theme of the Congress was the politics of alliances. How do you see the approaches they have had with the FA?
It is very positive that the PC is seeking to consolidate this expression of political-social alliance, which is this configuration of a left pole that begins to develop from Chile Digno and that extends its ties to the FA. This is a natural encounter that I would have expected to happen long before.
Is it still possible to talk with the former Concertación?
Of course. In the former Concertación there are sectors that do identify with an antineoliberal position and with them building a presidential primary is completely possible. In no way do we rule out unity in tactical terms, but as long as that sector does not make a clear anti-neoliberal definition, it is very difficult to think of a future coalition.
But they were already government with them, why not now?
The New Majority was never a proper coalition. We always had the safeguard of stating that it was a programmatic political agreement for a presidential term.
More about Communist Party
But how does wanting a presidential primary and not a joint government work?
That is why it is very important to establish basic programmatic political agreements. Alliances, the presidential election, are key elements for the discussion, but there are political forces on the center-left that are very comfortable with neoliberalism.
Like who?
Within the PS there is a whole current that is clearly in an anti-neoliberal position, I have no doubt about that. As there are also sectors in the PS that would like to return to the logics that are accommodating to the economic model of the dictatorship and that are more comfortable with the logic of continuity of the neoliberal model. That is something the PS will have to resolve. The same in the PPD or other parties of the former Concertación.
Teillier read a report calling for “surrounding the constituent process with mobilizations.” Couldn’t something like that spoil the atmosphere in that instance?
We have talked about surrounding the process from the territorial uprising of ideas, citizen assemblies, mobilization in the streets.
And isn’t it a call to “pressure” the convention?
I call the other way, to the political world, not to be afraid of the mobilization, but to learn to live with it.
But does the PC want the mobilization to pressure the constituent process?
Undoubtedly that contributes and, obviously, they have to remain active, otherwise, in the constituent process some sectors will feel protected by the institutional space and will make decisions that are not going to be in accordance with what society sue.
But popular mobilization also has dangers. Doesn’t that call open the risk to funas, for example?
Nobody wants this to become an act of violence and we have in no way called for limiting political expressions.
They supported the contested parliamentary election in Venezuela. Why?
The CP has never hidden its position of solidarity with the processes of change that are taking place in different countries of the world. Clearly, there are differences with other political forces, but that cannot be an excuse to establish a distance with whom we have common points.
But Venezuela always gives them a headache. Is it a mistake to continue to reaffirm that support?
It is necessary to look at the international scene with a greater vision, rather than criticize in particular the position that the CP has in relation to one government or another.
