“Boycott attitudes of the opposition translate into institutional decline”

This was warned by the head of the parliamentary party of the PC, Luis Cuello, who highlighted that “there is a continuation on the part of the right in its effort to boycott the entire Government agenda.” Faced with Chile Vamos’ demand for the resignation of Javiera Martínez and Miguel Crispi, the legislator established that “one thing is for the opposition to fulfill its supervisory role, but another thing is for the persecution of officials to be naturalized.” He announced that next Wednesday the ruling party will enter the debate on what was 18/O, placing the emphasis on social demands and human rights.

Hugo Guzman. Journalist. “The century”. Santiago. 10/13/2023. The opposition refuses to discuss the 2024 Budget, even wanting to leave it at 1 peso, if La Moneda does not make the Budget Director, Javiera Martínez, and the head of presidential advisors, Miguel Crispi, resign.

There is a continuation on the part of the right in its effort to boycott the entire agenda of the Government, it wants to divert the discussion and the underlying issues, avoid the issues that have to do with improving the quality of life of the people, with arbitrary facilities and secondary, going so far as to capriciously maintain that he discusses matters if ministers, undersecretaries, directors or government officials are removed. Before, it was with the case of former minister (Giorgio) Jackson, whose departure was proposed to process the pension reform, and even though Jackson left there was no change from the right, and now this pressure that the Budget Director must leave without any serious reason, really sustainable. Everything comes from a complaint filed, furthermore, by the Republicans, which also has no basis. In short, they want to boycott the Government, they do not want to let it govern.

Isn’t that affecting institutional functioning?

Definitely. These thuggish attitudes, of permanent boycott of the opposition, translate into a deterioration, a decline in institutional functioning. Now they are threatening to not let the Budget Director into the room to discuss the Budget Law, when she is in charge of that issue, she is the person who should be there. And they threaten not to accept the 2024 Budget if there are no resignations. There is a decline from the point of view of politics and political debate. It is one thing for the opposition to fulfill its supervisory role, to have differences with the Government’s programs and content, that is natural and legitimate, it is healthy that there is a public debate, but another thing is that the persecution of officials, of people, without serious and sustainable reasons, simply pointing out someone’s political militancy and from there jumping to supposed links with facts (such as the “agreements case”) as an element that determines whether or not to leave a position, without any solid, real argument . The only thing I have heard about Javiera Martínez and Miguel Crispi is that they belong to a party like the Democratic Revolution, and that they persecute them for their militancy. All of this deteriorates politics and is deeply undemocratic.

What do you think that Miguel Crispi does not attend the Investigative Commission?

This Investigative Commission is making abusive use of its powers because ultimately the invitation or summons to Crispi is irrelevant. This commission is intended to investigate the Government’s actions on precarious settlements, that is, on the origin of this “agreement case”, which has to do with Living Democracy and in particular its relationship with camps and, therefore, the Crispi’s role as Undersecretary of Regional Development has no connection with that and that is why the citation is irrelevant. Rather, the idea of ​​citing him is to point towards La Moneda, to direct the “agreements case” towards La Moneda in a very forced way and that is why they point to Miguel Crispi. What must be remembered is that the Government has had a very resolute attitude regarding the “agreement case”, political responsibilities were asserted, there are administrative and criminal investigations, and that is why I believe that the Government acts correctly, it does not make a corporate defense. But that does not mean that we have to accept any capricious pressure from the opposition that seeks to maliciously muddy the entire Government.

There is a freeze, a prolongation, in the discussion of the pension reform and the fiscal pact. Is it because of another boycott from the right or what is happening?

In the case of the pension reform, in the Labor and Social Security Commission we voted on it in general in January of this year, and we are already in October. And the leadership of Minister Jeannette Jara fosters all kinds of spaces for conversation with the opposition to reach some point of understanding. However, one finds oneself in front with a very obtuse attitude that is very determined by the defense of economic interests, of the interests of the AFP, to the point that the presentation made by the representatives of the AFP in the Labor Commission, their arguments and their proposals were identical to what the legislators of Chile Vamos proposed. That is to say, there is an evident community of interests here and that is what has operated. Rather than reaching agreements on pension reform, the objective of the right is that there be no pension reform. They are interested in maintaining the AFP industry and that has become clear, one listens to their speeches and confirms their concern for the future of the industry, it is not a concern about people’s retirements, about increasing them and even less about reaching to a good social security system. It is a right blinded by the defense of the interests of the industry, of a financial business, and that explains its blockade of the pension reform and the fiscal pact. Let us remember that the opposition’s great argument regarding the tax reform was and is the tax on the super-rich, it is the element that they questioned the most. A political right and an economic right are undoubtedly operating against reforms that seek to improve people’s material conditions.

Next Wednesday there is a special space for discussion in the Chamber of Deputies about the social revolt of 2019, October 18 marks four years since that event. A very strong debate is expected, the opposition speaks of “a criminal outbreak” and the ruling party claims that fact and places emphasis on human and social rights.

We have to have the debate, because what the right does is use a tool of the special sessions with a deceptive formula in which it attempts to disguise history, falsify history, in the case of very recent history. They call the social outbreak in a very insulting way, when the reality is that the social and popular outbreak had as its origin the enormous inequalities that persist in Chile and that come from an economic model that is deeply inhuman and concentrates wealth. A challenge that day is also to remember that the popular revolt had a response from the Government of Sebastián Piñera that was very harsh, with repression that had not been seen before in the period of democracy and the world observed with horror how dozens of young people suffered. eye amputations, thousands of people were injured, many people died, there were thousands of illegal detentions, torture and coercion, and all of this is ratified and accredited in various reports from international and national human rights organizations. Our duty is to put those realities at the center. And what is the State’s debt to the people who were victims of repression during the Piñera administration.

In short, is the terrain in Congress very tense, very tense, very tangled?

Certainly, and there are quite a few difficulties in moving forward. Despite this, I have the expectation that we can converge on common objectives, reach agreements or consensus, even with other political forces that are not part of the ruling party, such as the Christian Democrats, with which we have a governance agreement, an administrative agreement. in the Chamber, and that generates a political space that hopefully allows us to advance in objectives that are very important for the Chilean people.

What will happen with the Usurpation Law and the presidential veto? You have differences there with the Government.

The first thing is that we appreciate that the Government has vetoed this Law and that it aims to suppress content that violates the rule of law and that causes a danger to the life and physical integrity of people. But, and there is no need to dramatize it, we have differences with the presidential veto in particular regarding the penalty for non-violent usurpations, where there is no violence on the part of people, nor force on things, there it seems to us that the current penalty that should be maintained should be maintained. It’s about fines. We are going to support the essence of the veto, and in other aspects we will have a different position together, deputies, senators and senators of the Communist Party.

When you express differences with the Government or within the ruling party, alarms are raised of divisions, of pressures, of taking away ground.

The thing is that sometimes there are self-serving exaggerations, because for example, in the fuel transportation law, several parliamentarians also from other parties voted against what the Government proposed and not just us. There were differences regarding bills, but what must be noted is that we have supported the bulk of the Government’s agenda. Sometimes we have not participated in the origin of the initiatives, and that sometimes shapes the votes, but we have supported the bulk of the projects. The differences that arise do not have to be dramatized.

Finally, is your relationship as a parliamentary bench of the Communist Party with the Minister of the Interior, Carolina Tohá, distant, tense, or fluid and close?

There is no distance. There was a media interpretation based on that activity that was carried out in La Moneda in support of Minister Tohá, which we did not attend for real agenda reasons, however, on the same day, in the morning, we gave a press point expressing our support for the Minister of the Interior. She has our support and, of course, the entire ministerial cabinet of President Gabriel Boric. There is an interested construction of some who became anxious with definitions that have not yet been adopted (presidential candidates). Our relationship with President Boric and with the Government is a relationship of support, support and conversation.