Marta Lagos, Tomás Hirsch, Bárbara Figueroa, sank their teeth into the political scene

They went beyond the contingency and media episodes and delved deeply into the country’s realities and challenges, especially in terms of “the people’s urgencies.” The analyst and founder of Latinobarómetro y Mori, the deputy of Acción Humanista and the general secretary of the PC spoke at the forum “The post-plebiscite scenario” organized by The century. Some paragraphs of the reflections: “The result was positive because people did not want to give their vote to an ultra-conservative project”; “A Constitution that was very aggressive is defeated. And that is a defeat of the right, not only of the extreme right, but of the entire right”; “It is still pending to reach a Constitution, the Constitution that guarantees rights that we still do not have, and we still do not have a social democratic State with rights”; “In this dichotomy of who wins and who loses, the feeling is that there is something that has not yet been resolved, and that has nothing to do with the constitutional issue, but with that unfulfilled demand, everyday life, quality of life, and that was left pending, was left in limbo”; “What the agenda should contain is a cultural and political agenda, so that people understand, so that people change, especially that sector that continues to be so conservative”; “Citizen expression, the expression of strength, mobilization, organization, the expression of the social movement is fundamental”; “We cannot lose sight of the urgent demands. You have to take measures, go to solutions, deliver answers that can be concrete”; “It is important how we open space for a different type of agenda that does not subordinate us to the agenda of the opposition or the media.”

“The century”. Santiago. 12/22/2023. Marta Lagos, renowned analyst and expert and founder of Latinobarómetro y Mori, Tomás Hirsch, deputy of Acción Humanista and former presidential candidate, and Bárbara Figueroa, general secretary of the Communist Party and former president of the Unitary Central of Workers (CUT), participated in a forum of The century, titled “The post-plebiscite scenario” to, beyond the episodic, get into crucial realities in the country. It was hosted by journalist Hugo Guzmán, director of the newspaper, and these are notable paragraphs.

Marta, there are several factors to consider but, in general, what can we see or conclude from what was the result of the plebiscite?

Well, it’s a pleasure to talk to you. Your question is huge, but hey, I’ll try to give some clues. First of all, what was seen on Sunday was something that not everyone could have foreseen. We had the feeling that there is a very significant part of the country’s population that was not interested and did not watch or read political news, that did not see the strip, that is, there were many people uninformed about what they were going to vote for.

But if you look at the result, it was very interesting. Here is a value result. For example, the high percentage of women who voted Against and that 92% of young people voted Against, under 35 years of age. It seems to me that, despite the misinformation, there was a reaction, and at least a large part of the population showed that it responds politically to an event like this plebiscite.

But I would say that there is something perhaps more important. They are people who do not respond ideologically, but they do respond value-wise. It seems to me that an example is the issue of the three causes for termination of pregnancy, that this law was affected, that greatly influenced women, or very conservative content, and that influenced the youngest.

What happens is that people focus on specific issues, not the general news, not the general content, but on those topics that are related to the values ​​that are compared and are in more specific topics. The people saw the three causes, the removal of rights, specific things, and they saw that the discussion of the agenda was a matter of sectors of power and in that articulation from power the people are not touched, the specific things that touch people and in the end, I believe, the result had to do with something quite valuable.

What happens – and it is not a small matter – is that at the end of the day it is about communicating with the citizen and the citizen is not always interested in what interests politics, power, and there situations occur that are not is expected. So perhaps the citizens were not informed, or they were somewhat informed, but he had perceptions of specific issues that he did not like, that affected him, because in short we have a citizenry that is informed about what interests it. The problem is that politics does not respond to that.

Anyway, I think the result was positive because people did not want to give their vote to an ultra-conservative project, people did not want to lose rights, they did not want to give their vote to a project that affected them and that they perceived affected them.

Tomás, there was a lot of talk about the 5 million undecided voters, forced to vote, who in the previous plebiscite and in the election of constitutional councilors gave a majority to the right. But now it has been proven that this electorate is not necessarily right-wing. How to look at behaviors?

Well, I want to start by saying that the draft Constitution presented by the right, not just the extreme right, was a danger. We come from a process, because another proposal was presented previously and I am one of those who really liked that project. And not because of a whim, but because I believe that it was indeed a proposal that put Chile at the forefront in many matters, it responded to the 21st century, it served to provide solutions and to face challenges that are new. It raised issues of the environment, women’s rights and the rights of diversity, the rights of animal species, ending the concentration of political-economic power, and the recovery of the country’s fundamental resources. And there was a terrible campaign against that proposal, they lied, they installed fake newsit was a campaign to the death.

Then came this second process, with a paradox, and that is that after the social outbreak, which is a great mobilization for more rights, for dignity, the extreme right ends up in charge of writing a proposal for a new Constitution. And I say in charge because the Republicans and Chile Vamos in the Constitutional Council had a majority in the Constitutional Council and with that majority what they did was push ahead, impose their own thing, not allowing absolutely any possibility of building dialogue, agreements, in other words, everything. that which had to do with the process. They had been generating a totally identity-based proposal, with a conservative, neoliberal proposal. They made a proposal that had an extremely conservative vision of society and that limited rights and the people rejected it. There were factors that made this proposal a civilizational setback. The people understood in some way that they were imposing a proposal that was a vision of society that was extremely conservative and that weakened rights. This was summarized very well in the issue of defense of rights, people saw that here a vision was being imposed on them with which they actually did not agree. There was a large percentage of young women who voted Against.

This contradictory thing occurred, that the Republicans, who did not want to change the Constitution, were at the forefront of the project to change the Constitution. Maybe they were taking a risk as authors, but they did it. Of course, they stated that if a Constitution that was more regressive than the current one won, they would win, but if they lost, the current one would remain and it would still be an advance.

But the truth is that in the plebiscite a Constitution that was very aggressive is defeated. And that is a defeat for the right, not only for the extreme right, but for the entire right.

Barbara, analysts came out and there were cries that in the plebiscite no one won and no one lost.

Yes, that theory that there was a tie has indeed been recurring, and also the right stated that if it won, it won by having its new Constitution, but if it lost, it would still win because it maintained. But the truth is that the right and its proposal lost. Now, of course, there was no triumphalist atmosphere, there was no feeling of winning, but rather of not going backwards.

The biggest problem, more of who wins or who loses, because a Constitution that was very regressive is defeated, and that is a defeat of the right, not only of the extreme right, but of the entire right, the biggest problem is what remains or what’s coming. In this dichotomy of who wins and who loses, the feeling is that there is something that has not yet been resolved, and that has nothing to do with the constitutional issue, but with that unfulfilled demand, with the contingent, the everyday, the quality of life, and that was left pending, was left in limbo. We do not have a Constitution that is regressive, but where is the debate about everyday matters, about needs. It has to do with the real possibility of responding to people’s urgencies.

There is still no clarity on where we are going to go, people do not feel that there are solutions, and there is no progress seen not only in issues such as pensions – there is a reform – but in those demands and emergencies and I see that there is a unaddressed topic.

Marta, what is the upcoming agenda in the country?

Look, the plebiscite has left me with a long-term taste. It seems to me that much of what happens should go beyond the short term, the immediacy.

Considering issues such as the right in this plebiscite had 44%, that is a very large vote, it is gigantic. 44% voted for a conservative Constitution, and we must understand this well in the sense of how to overcome a tremendously conservative position that is expressed in the country.

I think that is not going to change if we are not able to lead that population to a more modern vision of the world. But we are encapsulated in that 40%, if it is the vote that the right has had in recent years, even in the plebiscite when the No won, I think we have had that vote for about 50 years.

So, if you look, if you ask me what the agenda should contain, it is a cultural and political agenda, so that people understand, so that people change, especially that sector that continues to be so conservative. We must strengthen democracy or the values ​​of democracy, which means the right to have rights. Because this was a constitutional proposal that eliminated rights, but there are those who voted for that Constitution.

Also on the agenda we must strengthen the social aspect, of course, without forgetting that we have a weak State. Because there are social sectors that have many needs and that are not satisfied.

Tomas, in this picture we see a right that, despite the result of the plebiscite, does not move from a position of obstruction, saying no to everything, starting with the fiscal pact, the pension reform, and the economic and social measures.

I start by saying that I think it is a tremendously complicated moment. Are we on the defensive right? Everything indicates no. I have been coming from Congress and the discussions continue that the right is saying no to everything the Government presents, it is a tactic. They have the majority in Congress, we cannot forget it, and it is a difficult scenario. They are on a war footing and due to a decision to prevent any advance that may be attempted in whatever the Government wants, so they present a constitutional accusation, they oppose the fiscal pact, the pension reform, everything.

Marta spoke of the continuity of that 40%, that 44% of the right, but it is the difference that there was in the second round in which Gabriel Boric won, and in the plebiscite to end the dictatorship, more than 40% voted for That the dictatorship continued was incomprehensible to me. But that is a right-wing vote, which they can raise, and they know it. Indeed, there are 40-odd percent who vote for the right. This must be assumed and understood.

If these results are repeated, then is that the composition of society? We don’t know, but we must face it. In a change of direction this information must be kept in mind. It is real that neoliberalism is a wall, and not only as an economic model. Neoliberalism entered the heads of ordinary people as a vision of individualism, a compartment separated from the rest and, therefore, everything that could be the value of the security of the community was postponed.

That is why there is a situation that remains and we have a challenge that has to do with how to build, recovering certain values ​​that have to do with the basis of how society is built. What we experienced on Sunday has to do with facing that. And from there to say what we were saved from as a country, because if A Favor won it would be the consecration of the right-wing offensive in all areas. I believe that they would even have constitutionally accused President (Gabriel) Boric.

Now, it is still pending to reach a Constitution, the Constitution that guarantees rights that we still do not have, and we still do not have a social democratic State of rights. Well, as forces of the ruling party we are not going to promote the third process, at least during the year, but that does not mean that the people do not want another Constitution, the people still aspire to arrive at a democratic Constitution. The day will come when it will be possible to leave behind a hierarchical Constitution, one absolutely illegitimate in its origin. How long will that take? I don’t know, but the historical process at some point expresses itself.

There is a lot to come in the coming years. Historical processes do not depend only on governing, they depend on how the people promote the transformations. I believe that citizen expression, the expression of strength, mobilization, organization, the expression of the social movement is fundamental. The housing movements, the anti-fraud movements, the health movements, the student movements are essential to be able to produce the pressure that must be made for the changes.

Barbara. In contacts with the Latin American press, they asked what happened to the Chilean social movement considering the popular outbreak of 2019, how this current situation came to be. Because we see a folded social world.

During the social outbreak it was not only the constitutional demand. It was the demand for the minimum wage, for labor rights, for education, health, the rights of women, of indigenous peoples. That cannot be forgotten, there was a list of demands, several points.

We cannot lose sight of the urgent demands, the needs of now. And we must take measures, go for solutions, provide answers that can be concrete and that do not necessarily require a resolution in the Legislature. We must give an objective and concrete signal that the Government is taking care of a daily, urgent demand of people’s needs.

Look, I think that in terms of public safety, decisions have been made and measures have been taken, but complete security is still pending, having a street with lighting, bus stops with lights, more sports fields, more recovered spaces, and everything. That is for people’s safety.

I think the parties can contribute, but it is not enough. The social, the organized social world, has a privileged place in all this, in achieving solutions, in ensuring that reforms and measures advance that help people. Because institutionally, currently, social actors feel that there is no real space and that space must be created. You have to talk to social actors and move forward. But if you don’t dialogue with them, if you only receive them but there is no real dialogue, if you can’t move forward there, well, other searches will come, other spaces, other paths. You have to have real spaces for participation.

Marta, did you want to add something?

From what Barbara says, it is a very important point, the difference between a society constituted in community and constituted in individuality. It is important how and where people meet, the interaction they participate in, the community that is such. That’s from the neighborhood. So, effectively, we lack community, we have to spread that, that human groups agree to do something to do, to reach an action.

Because social movements do not have to be just a document. The social wind must be in all these issues that we have talked about, so decisive. I know what a terribly individualistic society is and what is not. If we live in a dictatorship, and now there are generations that did not live through the dictatorship, they were born and raised in democracy.

Speaking of very contingency points, and that has to do with leadership in these processes or these actions, Tomás, we began to talk about Michelle Bachelet 3. I don’t know if it is a matter purely of a media agenda or of the hegemonic media.

Well, yes, it’s something from the hegemonic media. But look, in this country when a President of the Republic has just been elected, people already begin to discuss who is going to be the next President. It’s tremendous. I have no problem with the Michelle Bachelet option, or with another, that will be seen, but I think everything we have talked about about the social movement is more relevant and how from there you can think about who can be in La Moneda, representing which program , what ideas. And not waste an individual who can represent a project, of course.

But if we continue to believe that we are going to achieve the transformations if one or another person is in La Moneda, we are not right, if when the most important thing is why we come to La Moneda and the aspirations of a social movement that supports a President. I am not speaking now against Michelle Bachelet’s option, whether or not she values ​​her name, but placing the issue of representation at the center and that we are going to reach La Moneda based on the aspirations and demands of the social movement and from town.

I don’t think we should discuss or look at who is going to be a candidate, that diverts us from the assessment of the common construction that we need to do. The most relevant thing is what response capacity there is to the social world on the part of whoever comes, what ability to lead a program and get involved.

Barbara, debates persist between the ruling parties, some want to unify, there is talk of the challenges of the coming years and even whether they will reach the presidential and parliamentary elections united. There is an issue with the political organizations of the ruling party.

Look, I don’t like to talk about the other parties, about what they are going to do, if there is some unity process that is fine with me, but each one must have their space and I want to be respectful of that. Now, that the ruling parties have challenges, there is no doubt.

To begin with, it is important that we strengthen ourselves because that is good for democratic systems, just as it is important to strengthen social movements, it is also important that political parties are in good health, that they are robust, strengthened and, therefore, I think the democratic political system is important.

The matches must be part of the designs we make. To begin with, we have the main task of strengthening democracy, that democracy be respected, because there are dangers, if not let’s look at Argentina, where measures are taken that go beyond Congress, above international agreements and established rights. There are risks for the democratic system, we have seen it in recent years in several countries.

On Sunday we had the risk of going backwards from a democratic point of view, of going backwards in consecrated rights, and all of that is a challenge for the political parties, it is something unavoidable.

At the same time, and it is something central, it is to be well in tune with the citizens, with the representation of the citizens, to further improve management, to seek relief for the citizens in the face of the emergencies they have. Because otherwise, there is no harmony, people say “the parties do not represent me”, we generate a distance.

So I think that there is a main measure of the parties, that we are less commentators on the problems and that we enter into the solutions, the answers, that is for the official parties and the opposition parties. On this path we must demand more firmly that the opposition parties speak out specifically on the reform agenda and the agenda of current demands.

I want to insist on something above: the action of social actors is very important, because the action of the parties is not enough, we must add the strength and voice of the political parties and social actors.

In this it is important how we open a space for an agenda of another type that does not subordinate us to the agenda of the opposition or the media, but rather puts us in the process in which we are. What interests us is to establish our own agenda that allows us to reconnect with citizens at the end of the day, if not, you are far away. Not only have the sense of opportunity, but to install a positive agenda, always more consistent in sustaining. In this, persistence is important, a lot of persistence, it is persistence to establish our issues and respond to the urgencies of the people.

It is necessary to have our agenda and, by the way, alternative media are important in that, those that, precisely, have another agenda different from the hegemonic media, they talk to us about other topics, they give other perspectives.

Marta, in all this, what is the state of mind of the Chilean men and women?

I believe that other points on the agenda are required, that it be about rights, about things that people raise and look at. It is part of what I understand about the result of the plebiscite.

Now, I want to say that it seems to me that people understand a lot more about the long term than they think. Yes, people are very concerned about their emergencies and solving their problems, but they understand the long term, about working on solutions that in the end are more consistent.

Of course, I must remember that there is an obsession with immediacy. It is true that the negative creates tremendous hopelessness in Chileans. There is anguish, hopelessness, related to being able to be, to be able to solve. Because if I am stuck, I do not move forward, and the danger of hopelessness arises, the anguish of not being able to change my situation. That has to do with the state of mind.

There is a very important difference in what has happened in recent years, when people said that they were “seeing a light” and people thought that the new Constitution was going to change their lives. In the end that didn’t happen.

So right now, the way I see it, the most important thing is to focus on the answer, whatever it is, on whatever topic it is, to find an answer that helps people. The inability of the political system to provide answers caused the situation of 2019.

And then comes the second exercise, which is the absence of concrete answers. But I hope that doesn’t happen. No matter how small or trivial it may be, giving answers, this way it is possible to move forward, take a small step forward.

Because, excuse me, but suddenly everything seems the same, the book of inequality continues, it seems like the impossibility of change. There is a deep despair among the Chilean people in the capacity of the political system. This has to do with any government in power. It is an issue of the political system.