[ad_1]
If there is something they share in the opposition, from the DC to the Broad Front (FA), it is that the social outbreak the fence of “common sense” ran to the left and thus, those who at some point resisted the changes, understood that it was “imperative” to move towards profound reforms in social matters.
In this sense, in the center-left they argue – with different nuances – that the 18-O gave reason, in part, to the diagnosis with which Michelle Bachelet arrived at La Moneda in 2013, whose central axis was to confront inequality and initiate a constituent process. And, on the other hand, to the flags that the FA defended with the candidacy of Beatriz Sánchez in 2017.
But also, they say in the opposition, the outbreak forced them – to varying degrees and especially those who governed during the years of the Concertación – to make a self-criticism in the face of the growing distrust of the citizens. “It has been a period of taking charge of the responsibilities that correspond to all of us in the political world”says the president of the PR, Carlos Maldonado.
Thus, despite the fact that in the sector they assure that today it is on the table “A progressive agenda”This year has not been one of happy accounts for the center-left. In fact, as recognized by some leaders, no opposition party has had the ability to “capitalize” on the outbreak in political terms and, almost a week after a plebiscite that was once regarded as a factor for the long-awaited opposition unit, In these twelve months the center-left has not been even close to that goal.
In this sense, in the opposition there are different views of the political impact that 18-O had and, therefore, each force draws its own lessons: While some, like the DC, maintain that there was a “Polarization” that opened a space for the revitalization of the center forces, others, such as the Socialist Party, assure that a scenario was established “more to the left” What could it be “beneficial” to drive the changes they have championed.
“Bachelet raised in advance the need to make all these changes. And what did the right wing do? It made his life impossible and there were even sectors of the former New Majority that did not understand the importance of these transformations ”, remember the helmsman PS, Álvaro Elizalde.
Others, however, put a nuance. “The outbreak has a progressive component, but there is no single leadership that has managed to capitalize on it and, from that point of view, one must be careful, because the outbreak was not from the left”, maintains the president of the DC, Fuad chahin.
In the opposition they recognize that one of the lessons they hoped to learn from the social outbreak was not fulfilled. At that time, after the signing of a constitutional agreement where most of the center-left was present -with the exception of the PC- and a DC that was beginning to abandon its isolation and its “own path”, in the sector they saw an opportunity to reach the Unit.
Yet today the differences on the center-left are even deeper. In fact, after the failed negotiations for the municipal primaries and regional governors, the block was reconfigured into two pacts, thus materializing the different “oppositions” that exist in the sector.
On the one hand, the PS, PR, PPD, DC, PRO and Ciudadanos were grouped in the “Constituent Unit”, while the FA reaffirmed itself as a coalition. Meanwhile, the PC together with the FRVS were isolated from the rest of the sector. That atomization, they say, makes it even more complex for the center-left to have a certain chance of winning the next presidential election.
October 18 also caused a severe blow to the FA. After the agreement of November 15, an internal shakeup was generated in the bloc that ended with the departure of one of its strongest electoral forces, the Humanist Party. Likewise, the conglomerate has not been able to recover its approval levels prior to the outbreak, nor that of its former presidential candidate.
In the bloc they acknowledge that they have not yet been able to overcome the historical tension of whether or not to approach the former NM parties, despite claiming that the outbreak opened up the opportunity to compete for the government. However, today most of the FA intends to promote a “Turn to the left” and reach agreements with the PC.
After the outbreak, the PC hardened its positions. In those days, the community led by Guillermo Teillier supported legitimate “civil disobedience” and called for the departure of President Piñera. That tone distanced them from the rest of the center-left, a situation that would deepen in the early morning of November 15.
That night the Communists chose to subtract from what they described as a “kitchen.” And although that, to some extent, ended up isolating them from the rest of the center-left, in the community they see with good eyes what the outbreak meant for the communists.
More about Social outbreak
“After having differentiated ourselves from the pact for Peace (and a new Constitution), the party has done well and it shows with its possible presidential candidate,” he told Third last weekend Teillier, alluding precisely to the fact that the communist Daniel Jadue is the card of the center-left best positioned in the polls.
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/copesa/OVXFA43DBJE7HGY2GXE52YQPUA.JPG)
In the government they say that there are different views in the political committee and in the group close to Piñera about the outbreak. In the Palace, in any case, they learn common lessons, while in the coalition they believe that – despite the differences – the sector ended up uniting in the face of the opposition.
A series of analysis meetings within Chile Vamos and also between the coalition and the government were generated from the social outbreak. In the midst of the crisis, but also after several months had passed, different officials from the ruling party were privately debating which course to take.
Several of those encounters resulted in a series of law initiatives to respond to social demands, but in the center-right they add that it was in those instances that the disparity of visions that exist in the bloc, one of the main political effects that October 18 had on the sector.
In Palacio, for example, they admit that very different visions coexist in the political committee and in the group closest to President Sebastián Piñera. In fact, in the internal analysis to see if making a balance one year after the outbreak there were differences, since some link the date only with violence and that, therefore, should not be commemorated, while there are other government officials who consider it a necessary process that will end up contributing to the country.
Beyond that, the Executive has drawn some lessons, such as the importance of generating spaces for citizen participation that allow greater connection with social demands. Thus, there are those who believe that taking charge of citizen demands can isolate violent groups, but, on the other hand, one of the lessons learned in government has to do with relevance of the speech and the tone that is used. In that sense, they point out that the President’s phrase about “We are at war against a powerful enemy” it is part of these learnings about things that should not be repeated.
Likewise, in La Moneda they point to the importance of maintaining a united coalition in order to govern, especially in the face of strong divisions that occurred in Chile Let’s go. Precisely, one of the main political effects of the outbreak was that: to highlight the contrasts that coexist in the bloc, especially between an RN sector led by the current Minister of Defense, Mario Desbordes, and the UDI and Evópoli.
In this regard, there is also a mixed balance in the coalition. On the one hand, in some parties the main conclusion that has been installed over the months is that the outbreak, despite the political divisions that it exacerbated in the center-right, ended up uniting the block against the center-left. However, in other communities they look at that analysis from a distance and believe that the crisis did not generate anything positive for the center-right and the country. In addition, a reflection on economic growth has also been installed and how this element – a fundamental axis in the historical discourse of the right – is not perceived as something fundamental for a large part of the population.
“In Chile Vamos, what he did was achieve that on important issues we could unite, because we were facing a very belligerent left”says the president of the UDI, Jacqueline van Rysselberghe, while the deputy and ex-unionist Patricio melero holds the stage “It has sought a greater sense of unity in the face of the threat to our democratic system and the challenges we face”, along with pointing out that “economic growth is not valued by citizens as an element of permanent social welfare, but it also makes it clear that we have to have more and better State.” And he adds: “There is a very important flaw that leads our political sector to see that the subsidiary role of the State has to advance in a direction of strengthening this role of the State in a more resolute way than it has done so far.” .
However, the own Overflows -one of the protagonists of the November constitutional agreement- said on Friday in a radio interview that “In politics there are people who have continued trying to seek agreements and others who returned to the trenches.” This, targeting the center-right itself and also the center-left. “There are people who I think have not been up to the task, who returned to the trench, who took out other accounts now, and with the tranquility of the days we have had, and forgetting the days we had, changed radically,” he stressed.
The president of Evópoli, Andres Molina, add that “Chile Vamos has a range of different views in various areas of society, but also within each party”; and that in each community “different differences, emphasis and priorities were reflected ”. In addition, the leader says that one of the main lessons of October 18 is a “trial of the State” for claims in various areas and that, therefore, “the great challenge is the modernization” of the State. “As Chile Vamos we have to push the reforms to the institutions so that they regain the prestige they had,” he says, something to which the senator also adds Felipe Armario, who argues that the social outbreak made even more visible what qualifies as a “Systemic failure” of the public apparatus in areas such as health, education and security, topics that should be part – they say in the sector – of the new priorities.
However, Kast points out that in the coalition “You have visions that are more of immobility, at one extreme, and at the other extreme you have populism”Therefore, “there is an intermediate route that should characterize Chile Vamos, which is reformism with a sense of urgency and in a responsible way.”
This is precisely one of the key points that stand out in La Moneda, where they point out that Piñera has a special concern for the “institutional strengthening” and that for that very reason a central part of his discourse in the last year has been the need to respect institutions as a way of “taking care of democracy”.
