[ad_1]
The debate over the eventual postponement of the October 25 plebiscite raised by Chile Vamos and the Government continues to draw sparks. The opposition and analysts redoubled their darts against the arguments deployed by the Executive, especially by President Sebastián Piñera, who appealed to the variable of the post-pandemic economic crisis to justify a possible adjustment of dates.
PPD Senator Ricardo Lagos Weber put it this way. “I categorically do not share the President’s variable. With his criteria one could not have elections, “said the former minister in Radio Duna.
Meanwhile, for the senator of the same party, Felipe Harboe, the government’s intention is questionable. “It seems irresponsible to me to consider changing the plebiscite again,” he said in Infinite Radio, adding that “I am convinced that if we had not had a political agreement, the government of Sebastián Piñera would have fallen last year” in the midst of the October outbreak.
In the opinion of the parliamentarian, precisely “one of the ways to get out of this institutional crisis is with the plebiscite” and “those who propose a postponement for economic reasons, it seems to me that they do not understand anything of what is happening in the real population of the country”.
For the PPD president, Heraldo Muñoz, it is “very serious and delicate for the President to add to the health considerations in 6 months, the existence of” economic recession “for the eventual postponement of the October 25 plebiscite.”
“Surely with a recession other countries will make elections. Declaration further stresses the difficult time we are experiencing, “he said.
“Win it by coronavirus”
But not only in the world of political parties did they refute La Moneda’s argument. Analysts like Mauricio Morales also noted the cracks in the President’s argument.
“The 1988 plebiscite was held in a country with more than 40% of the poor. The 1999 elections were organized in the midst of the Asian crisis, and the 2009 elections in the framework of the subprime crisis. There is no economic reason that prevents making an election, ”said the academic from the University of Talca.
Meanwhile, in a letter to the director addressed to The Mercury, the National Humanities and Academic Award of the University of Valparaíso Agustín Squella came out on the thesis of those who intend to postpone the plebiscite.
“The constitutional process already started could not be won by the secretariat by those who oppose it or only consented to it with their lips out. Winning it by the secretariat, I mean, that is, by coronavirus, ”he says in the letter.
In particular, it refutes those who propose the thesis of avoiding the plebiscite, so that Congress retakes the draft of a new Constitution that the then President Michelle Bachelet presented to the National Congress shortly before the end of her term.
Squella recalls that from the same ranks on the right “they compared the process promoted by Bachelet with smoking opium, that is, with a blow” and “the current government itself, once it took office, completely ignored Bachelet’s project, even ostentation of their rejection of the very idea of a new Constitution ”.
“How can we not understand as a somersault that those who did all of this now propose to return to the process and the project that they reviled two years ago? How is it that normal times did not advise a new Constitution and now, in times of abnormality, neither, especially if it is proposed by a Constitutional Commission and approved by an exit plebiscite with universal suffrage? Why once again the fear of citizens expressing themselves directly on a matter of such importance? Just for fear of losing? Perhaps a country with problems could not go to vote in an initial plebiscite in which the only thing it will do is decide on an “Approval” or a “Rejection” and on the formula to be followed in the case of the former? the intellectual.
[ad_2]
