[ad_1]
A few days before the Plebiscite on Sunday, the national president of the UDI, Jacqueline van Rysselberghe, insisted on her call to vote for the “Reject” option through her social networks and did so, no less, with a statement loaded with a taste already known, of electoral processes of the past.
“In order to build, it cannot be destroyed, so we want to invite without hatred, without violence, without hurting, let’s vote rejection and defend our democracy with a pencil and paper, “he said. JVR through various virtual platforms, prior to the closing of the campaigns this Thursday.
But, unwillingly or unwillingly, the national union leader found nothing better than to use an emblematic phrase from the No campaign during the Plebiscite, to which the Rejection’s use of a rainbow has also been added, as has the NO of the eighties, that ended the dictatorship.
“No hate, no violence, no fear, no more. Vote NO, ”said the classic voice-over of the remembered 1988 campaign, which accompanied a sequence of images in which a hand outlined the NO option in the electoral process that determined the term of General Augusto Pinochet’s term in Chile.
Contacted by BBCL, Senator Van Rysselberghe ruled out that the use of NO elements was deliberate.
“We did it because that is the part (the phrase), if you look at it, that we have used in the UDI strip. More than linked to something, it is a contingent phrase because what we have seen on the part of the left is violence, harm and manifestations of hatred ”, explains JVR.
Since the “NO” campaign
The sociologist and consultant, Eugenio Tironi, one of the ideologues of the “NO” campaign spoke with BiobioChile in relation to the use of an element from the successful strip 32 years ago.
“The phrase was ‘Without hatred, without fear, without violence’, the senator forgot the ‘without fear’ ”, says Tironi initially.
“I want to take it as a self-critical gesture, as a maturing gesture because it means making what were the flags of the adversaries our own, because I suppose that both the senator and the vast majority of the UDI voted YES. So, that they make their own the flags of the NO and the call of the NO, it seems to me that it is a civilizing advance “, adds the specialist.
“I don’t think it has much impact, a long time has passed and people are not fooled either, to some people it must sound utilitarian,” says Tironi.
-So, despite the success of 32 years ago, and the current use of the phrase and the rainbow, do you think Rejection will reach you?
No, I don’t see that I have a way to win. In addition, this referred to a very specific thing, it meant that it was necessary to overcome the fear that it produced in the people, face Pinochet and vote NO. The fear of the repercussions that this could have, of revenge or setbacks. It was to break with the idea that the only way to get rid of Pinochet was with violence, it was to give peace a chance and it was also a moral position, to say that this was done in order to produce a more fraternal country and not generate more hatred or resentment, which was what the dictatorship had fueled to stay in power. What we live today has nothing to do with it.
-Why?
Because we do not have a dictatorship, because we are not in a society dominated by fear, of representation, dismissals, of being exiled. What is sought here is that with the acts of violence that young people and adolescents carried out in different parts of the country, last Sunday, they are the result of hatred and have a situation of bankruptcy, is to impute an inordinate importance to it. It has nothing to do with what he lived before.
-So, looking at both realities, what the NO campaign and the Rejection strip represented, what existed 30 years ago, did it represent and interpret in a better way what was happening in Chile?
-Yes, because to vote for Approval is to vote in favor of an entirely peaceful, institutional, deliberative, democratic process, such as we have never had in the history of Chile. Voting for approval is not perpetuating a dictator, it is not seeking to validate the violation of human rights, it is not seeking to enshrine a Constitution between roosters and midnight. It is the opposite, opening a path, which has risks, but if we walk it well, it will produce a situation of peace. This look with fear at what is coming is the same thing that was present in the 1988 Plebiscite -Yes campaign- and what that slogan tries to promote is that feeling.
In short, the ideologue of the emblematic political-advertising strategy of three decades ago says: “It seems that decades go by and nothing is learned.”
Everything will be defined on Sunday.
[ad_2]
