[ad_1]
It’s 3.30 p.m. and the president of BancoEstado, Sebastian Sichel, is coming from Pudahuel. A few days ago, he met an entrepreneur from that commune at an event. Yesterday he called her to have lunch together.
In that interview, the former Minister of Social Development – who was a professor of Constitutional Law at the San Sebastián University – says several times that he has no electoral definitions taken, but that he does not refuse any option. That, while growing his contacts with a sector of RN that looks at him as a possible presidential letter to strengthen.
Sichel, who reaffirms that on Sunday he voted for approval, assures that for now the focus in Chile Vamos should be placed on the election of a constituent and, above all, on the definitions of content that the sector must defend in that instance.
Why did you vote Approve?
I believe that a better Constitution and particularly a better political system is necessary. The crisis we are experiencing has to do with the inability to resolve conflicts in a good way and that, in addition, we have a blockage between the Executive and Legislative Power, a de facto parliamentarism with wholesale constitutional accusations, often violating the rules of decision. decision making it very difficult to govern. Therefore, there is a need to have a Constitution that resolves in a better way the conflicts between the powers of the State, if we are not going to end up not doing things … We want to reform pensions and we have been arguing like crazy for 10 years. I am not one of those who believe that we have bad parliamentarians or bad governments, what we have are bad rules to define the disputes between one and the other, and that is called the Constitution.
What is your reading of the 80% that you got on Sunday?
There are many reform needs contained in that 80%. There are people on the right seeking reforms and there are people on the left seeking them. There are also people who voted Rejection who wanted reforms but through Congress. There were different paths for changes and that of the Constituent Assembly won, which I do not see as tragic, the other way around. This 80-20 was a tremendous sign that the important thing is the purpose: to make a better Constitution.
In Chile Vamos there was a high vote for Approval, was it a mistake for the bloc to go in separate elections?
Our society is organized by causes and emotions, and by motivations and dreams. There are still some who try to crack this with political code. We try to see it in a line of left and right. None of my friends from the high school (Alexander Fleming, where he studied) defines himself as either the right or the left, but they do say “I want reform” or “I like the country as it is, but I want improvements” … Perhaps this is the best choice tangled since the transition because one could not identify who is on each side, what is identified is a spirit of reform.
How does Chile Vamos arrive at the election of constituents?
For the first time, an alliance between the center-right and the center can embody the spirit of reform in Chile because, probably, the left in its polarization has been getting closer to the re-founding idea. There is a tremendous opportunity for this spirit of reform to be taken over by an alliance between the center and the center-right, and not remain in the center-left forces due to the error of becoming polarized. Chile Vamos has an opportunity to unite this reformist force and also to join those who most resist change. Those in the resistance are in an anti-age spirit.
Add to a sector like Kast’s? It’s possible ?
I’ve never liked faces. You have to see if you want to be in the resistance or in the reform. Those are the conversations you need to have going forward. Resistance to change is a bad decision in a society that is changing.
On Monday, President Sebastián Piñera asked his ministers who were interested in being constituents and gave freedom of action. Is it going to be difficult to find in Chile Vamos a pool of people who fulfill this role?
I see more enthusiasm for that than going to Congress. There is a good opportunity, not only for candidates to come, but also to propose interesting reforms for the future and defend what we did. There is a great opportunity in the Constitutional Convention, but I do believe that we must escape the idea of the list of national unity, of cross-sectional lists. In the Constitutional Convention and – it is also valid for future government programs – one has to go to defend their ideas. What I expect from Chile Vamos is that it has cultural and social diversity, people who come from different worlds, who have grown up in different neighborhoods, different schools, who have different sexual options, who have had different life histories, which is what What else is Chile Vamos?
“I do believe that we must escape the idea of the list of national unity, of cross-sectional lists. In the Constitutional Convention you have to go to defend your ideas “
Sebastian Sichel
What must be maintained or modified in the Constitution?
I think there are fundamental things. The Constituent Convention can say what it wants, that is democracy, but one has to go out to defend the great democratic achievements that have been enshrined in the Constitution of Chile. The three basic principles: the right to freedom, the right to property with an associated social function, and I believe that the right to life as the essence of the State. And I believe that there are great achievements of the Constitution that was made in the transition that must be preserved as the autonomy of the constitutional bodies (Central Bank, TC, Servel, etc). It is necessary to discuss how many more autonomies are needed for these institutions to escape from the day-to-day political discussion. I also think it is central to discuss what rights we have to protect better in the future. One is obvious: the right to housing, but I think there are several that are being left out, such as the right to the environment and to live in a pollution-free society and everything that has to do with the circular economy. I will also defend the freedom of entrepreneurship to the end. A society that does not develop a culture of entrepreneurship and, therefore, subordinates that freedom to undertake to the State is brutal.
Solidarity or subsidiary state?
Subsidiarity has bad press, but it is a concept that was born and defended by DC – and I was DC -, which comes in the Of the new things which is a deeply social principle. Having been Minister of Social Development, I deeply believe it, because it forces the State to act when no one else can. What happens is that some dogmas have tried to say that this is a duty of abstention of the State. On the contrary, it is a duty of action and what we have to look for are constitutional norms that give meaning and flesh to the positive dimension of the principle of subsidiarity … What happens is that it cannot be the caricature made by some sectors of the right conservative nor the caricature of the left. This does not imply that we also have to have a state of solidarity that is also capable of acting in places where civil society and the private sector cannot.
What matters separate or divide Chile Vamos in constitutional matters?
The center-right effectively evolved, and that is why I feel comfortable here. A lot of the right wing that did not believe in democracy once again believed in democracy. Many of the right wing that believed only in the market, now deeply believe that the State has to play a role and for that it demands degrees of efficiency. The right has been changing, while the left has been regressing, it has returned to the flags of the 60’s. That is why there is the possibility that this center-right with the center embodies the reform, because it can better bring together the points of modernity defending very strongly the role of the market and the State. I see other sectors much more self-conscious that it seems that they do not want to defend companies, as if it were bad to defend them, which are generators of wealth. In short, there is a political possibility in Chile. We are going to build consensus easier because that dilemma has been resolved: believe in the State and believe in the market.
Where are Chile Vamos’s difficulties going to face the constitutional process?
The difficulties of Chile Vamos may be in value aspects and in defining the system of government. Perhaps there will be valuable aspects that we will have to leave out of the Constitution because there is no possibility of finding consensus. But the government system is going to be the next big conversation. We must agree on what is the cure for the deficiency of this system of government with a festival of constitutional accusations with de facto parliamentarism. We have not agreed on the recipe to cure the disease. We do share that there must be an improvement of the government system.
Will it be a friction point as strong as the value?
On the contrary, the main difference will be in the government system in Chile Vamos. In terms of values - I am in favor of equal marriage, for example, I have never had problems – but when one begins to decide whether we want more presidentialism or more parliamentarism, there are more different and transversal views in the parties. Therefore, I believe that there is a substantive conversation because there is an important part or the essence of what will be discussed in the constitutional convention and we have to agree. I believe that there are two fundamental battles in the coming constitutional debate: one the political regime and who assigns social rights, not which ones are enshrined. But later I see in a certain world, I would say more ideological on the left, that believes that the allocation of rights has to be done by the courts and not by who manages the budget. And I am openly convinced that there must be a consecration of law for the assignment of those rights has to do with the economic capacity of the State …
You sound like an eventual presidential figure in Chile. Come on, what is your itinerary after the plebiscite?
My situation is that I am proud and very happy to be president of Banco Estado. I don’t know what I’m going to do electorally. I am very politically incorrect in general, but now I can say that I will continue to be president of the BancoEstado and I will take the electoral election when it corresponds, at the appropriate minute, I do not refuse any but I will be president of the bank responsibly.
When you say that you do not deny any option, do you include the possibility of being presidential?
I have not sufficiently evaluated all the possible scenarios. I will do it in your minute, work and personal scenarios. What I don’t believe in is the people who are saying “I am a presidential candidate” without anyone having asked to be. Therefore for now there is no scenario, because nobody has asked me to be a candidate. But I will value it in its minute.
A sector of RN sees it as an eventual letter to counterbalance Lavín. How have these approaches been?
I am very respectful, especially being independent, of political processes. The parties themselves will define who their candidates are and I will make a decision on that. But I am super respectful of the institutional framework of the Chile Vamos parties. I am independent and as such I am president of the State Bank.
