The rejection of the new Chilean Constitution has marked a before and after for the Government of Gabriel Boric.
The president, born in Punta Arena 36 years ago, acknowledges in an interview with the director of EL PAÍS, Pepa Bueno, that his Executive "has understood that it is imperative to reconnect with the urgent needs and priorities of the people."
Three years after the social outbreak of 2019, "the deep reasons for the Chilean unrest are still present," Boric maintained on Friday during the conversation, held at the forum
The social challenge of Latin America.
Reforms, rights and social dialogue in Chile and Latin America
, promoted by EL PAÍS and the Organization of Ibero-American States (OEI), with the collaboration of PRISA Media and Ibero Americana Radio Chile.
Ask.
He presented the first Budgets of his mandate at a time of great global uncertainty.
Are they the ones you would have wanted to do or are they very marked by the situation?
Response.
Politics is not done, less from the Government, from ideal situations.
It is focused on the priorities of Chileans today and seeks to reconnect the trust of citizens with their institutions.
How the state works greatly influences people's perception of democracy.
If democracy does not serve to solve problems, people become disenchanted.
P.
Practically all the multilateral economic organisms are recommending to increase the tributary pressure.
Its reform contemplates income of 4% of GDP.
Is that all the fiscal route that Chile has?
A.
Piano, piano
.
First we have to pass this tax reform.
The OECD has recognized that it is ambitious but feasible.
We have focused on seeking a better distribution of resources and we have had a lot of dialogue.
I hope you reach agreements in the Senate.
We cannot forget that in Chile three years ago there was a social explosion.
The deepest reasons for this malaise are still, in many cases, fully valid.
We have to seek a more cohesive society.
For that, it is necessary to build a mattress, a State that guarantees universal social rights.
Now, that is done progressively.
Q.
I was struck by the number of times you referred to public safety in your televised speech on Thursday.
That is a matter in which the left does not usually enter.
What are you worried about?
R.
There are different dimensions of security and, indeed, from the left we always address more the issues of economic security, social security.
Public safety is very neglected and it is absurd.
Respect for the law is a guarantee of protection for those who need it most and must be a priority for the Government.
Even more so at a time when we have seen an escalation in crime.
P.
Is your government weaker since the rejection of the new Constitution?
R.
When one becomes erratic in the convictions one defends, obviously a government becomes weaker because it ceases to be credible.
I would have liked the text to be approved, but I think that our Government has understood that it is imperative to reconnect with the urgent needs and priorities of the people.
From the left we cannot only offer promises of worlds to come.
I have no doubt that we are going to reach an agreement and that surely, in some aspects, we will have to go more slowly than some of us would like.
Q.
When asked about the reasons that may have led to the rejection, you say:
You can't go faster than your people, than your people.
What does it mean exactly?
R.
In this debate it happens that many times the worst possible interpretation of what one is trying to say is chosen.
Some have interpreted this phrase as if he were saying
I am ahead of my time
.
No, I'm saying the exact opposite.
Pretending to be ahead of your time is a graceful way to be wrong.
The proposed text, which made a lot of sense to me, failed to summon the majority of Chileans.
There is a misunderstanding on the part of the majority of the [constituent] Convention, of which we were a part as the Broad Front.
As a historical process we have to take responsibility for what happened and learn.
P.
It was like a landing in reality, as if they had been in a bubble.
R.
You have to constantly seek balance.
When the progressive sectors get more than two-thirds of the convention, there are many who thought - that we thought - that we could go as far as we wanted.
More dialogue with the popular sectors was lacking.
Q.
Did you feel unauthorized?
A.
No, not at all.
I have all the democratic legitimacy that the presidential election with the greatest participation in the history of Chile gives us.
P.
_
What must the process that is beginning now have to come out with a text that is recognized by a majority of Chileans?
R.
It is important that we have a 100% elected Convention whose sole purpose is the drafting of the Constitution.
There has to be a process for listening to citizens that is more binding.
In addition, special care must be taken for the form.
For example, the interruption of the national anthem in the first sessions I think did a lot of damage to the spirit of unity.
The constituent is not starting from scratch.
Acknowledging history, imbibing and nourishing oneself from that history, is tremendously important.
P.
You have to politically convey a malaise that broke out in 2019 with the limits imposed by the institutional framework.
How are you going to combine this dual responsibility?
R.
In this we pick up the tradition of an important part of the Chilean left, we are very respectful and we highly value the institutions.
We know that changes and transformations, in order to be sustained over time, cannot depend on the government in power, but must be supported by institutions.
That's why I really like the idea of inhabiting the Republic.
When you get to the position I am in, you enter the position of President of the Republic.
It is much bigger than oneself and that means recognizing that there are limits.
P.
Are you afraid of not being understood, of course by the right, but also by a part of the left?
R.
That always happens.
You will never like everyone.
When you don't bother anyone, in the end it's because you're not making changes.
I have had very strong discussions within my sector.
It is always good to inconvenience or force our own people to reflect on our convictions.
Q.
You included in your government progressive politicians who had already governed.
What do they bring to your Executive and what can you learn from them?
R.
We come from a generation that was formed politically throughout the mobilizations, in the street.
There are some who say very flippantly that our generation is too used to having always won.
That is not true.
We were in political marginality for a long time and we managed to gradually build majorities.
But one of the things we learned is that the world does not part with us.
The idea that it is possible
to take the sky by storm and turn everything upside down
it is beautiful for poetry, but I think that when it comes to being a government one has to take charge of the story behind it.
I care a lot about generational dialogue.
The democratic breakdown in Chile also meant a breakdown of generations and our generation, the one born in the second half of the 1980s, did not have a political dialogue with the generations that preceded it.
It is necessary that we can generate that link and break the ghosts that exist.
P.
You just talked about
storming the sky
and I'm a journalist, I'm Spanish.
I have to ask him who he feels closer to, Pablo Iglesias or Íñigo Errejón.
A.
[Laughs].
I have no doubt that Pablo and Íñigo will be able to find each other behind Yolanda Díaz.
P.
You do not mind entering debates in which a part of the left does not usually feel comfortable, from public security to criticism of the violation of human rights in Nicaragua, in Venezuela, in Cuba as well?
A.
Of course.
One must have the same force to condemn the lack of freedom of expression in Cuba or the political prisoners in Nicaragua, that we have, for example, to condemn the illegal occupation of Israel in Palestine, or the assassinations of environmental leaders in Brazil.
We cannot be looking at the speck in someone else's eye and not see the beam in our own.
One cannot choose whom one morally condemns based on ideological preferences.
P.
How is this new Latin American left that is being talked about different?
R.
I really liked a response from Gustavo Petro to Diosdado Cabello when he greeted his victory and said that hopefully now they will return the mercenaries who are in Colombia.
Petro responded very categorically that in Venezuela and Colombia the right to political asylum is respected.
I thought it was a major cart stop.
Nicaragua was at some point, Sergio Ramírez himself says in
Goodbye Boys
, the last hope of the 20th century. Seeing that the red and black flags continue to fly behind a government with the characteristics of Ortega is something that makes me ashamed and I have no problem in rejecting it.
There is an important difference there.
We have also embraced themes to take charge of the world's problems.
The environmental challenge must be a political priority.
P.
Can this axis of the new left strengthen an integration process that places Latin America in the world?
A.
I hope so.
We have discussed it with Gustavo and we have high hopes for Sunday in Brazil.
But when the Petro, Lula, us triangle is said, I say: why are we going to exclude Guillermo Lasso [president of Ecuador]?
He is a person who does not think like us, he does not come from the same tradition, but Latin America is still Latin America.
I don't believe in groups where there are only those who have ideological affinity.
I want to build a Latin American unity that goes beyond the governments of the day.
P.
Where should Latin America be placed on the map of the world that is being drawn, with the competition for economic hegemony between the United States and China, and the relocation of world geopolitics due to the war in Ukraine, which today, by the way, step forward with Putin's announcement of annexation?
R.
We, as the Government of Chile, do not recognize the legality of the irregular annexation that has been made of the eastern provinces of Ukraine.
Q.
Do you consider it illegal?
A.
Illegal.
Q.
Imperialist?
A.
A war of imperialist aggression.
Q.
And where should Latin America be placed in the world?
R.
The first thing Latin America has to do is unite.
P.
Pepe Mujica said this morning that life only makes sense if when you look back you see that you have invested it in leaving a slightly better world and more freedom to those who come after us.
What objectives would you like to have fulfilled the day you have to leave the Presidency?
R.
He says something like that those who follow you are better than you.
One of the lessons learned from politics in Chile is that we cannot get used to or remain screwed in our positions, but rather we have to contribute to the training of those who will challenge us.
I believe that we are going to advance progressively and that deep down our path is the path that Galeano referred to.
I walk one step, you take two, I walk four steps, you take eight, I walk 20 steps, you take a thousand.
What use is utopia to me if I'm never going to reach it?
Utopia, comrades, helps me to walk.
And that's where we are.