President Boric’s words, at the funeral of the recently deceased former president, went beyond what was necessary. It is one thing to pay the corresponding tributes as former head of state, including recognizing the successes that former President Piñera had in his two terms in office, but another is not to make a balanced political judgment, recognizing not only the lights but also the shadows of a ruler, especially when these are related to the responsibility that the latter has regarding violations of Human Rights during his last period.
That a political sector, in this case the right, seeks to sanctify its “heroes” is perfectly understandable, especially when that sanctification translates into electoral gain. The figure of Sebastián Piñera, even though he was uncomfortable for many within the right, -especially due to his distance from the dictatorship and the recognition of the responsibility of the political world as “passive accomplices” of serious human rights violations-, is the one who It allowed him to return to power democratically after decades. Joining the sanctification and using the rhetoric of the “reason of State”, of the statesman, goes beyond the legitimate recognition of a person’s virtues, showing a political calculation that antagonizes him with his electorate, and knowing that this enmity is temporary. , especially in a country with little historical memory and the ability to forgive – and sometimes forget – even the worst crimes.
In recent political history, institutional forgiveness – and forgetfulness – have been recurrent, but they are part of a reasoned way of administering power that guarantees the “governability” of the system. From Patricio Aylwin’s “justice to the extent possible”, to refer to the Human Rights violations committed during the dictatorship, to Eduardo Frei’s “reasons of state” to bring back the dictator without any possibility of trial, the Presidents have resorted to this tactic to position themselves as statesmen, and have a place in official history beyond the legitimate recognition of their adherents. Seeking legitimacy among opponents has a rational logic that seeks governability, especially in political systems where oppositions maintain large shares of power, but it is also usually attractive to achieve personal interests, even when it means a loss of political support from that sector that has established him as the leader.
In this case, President Boric has sought the same thing, jumping on the bandwagon of pain, of the effect of the tragedy experienced by the hero of the sector, but crossing the limit, especially because his message places a blanket of doubts regarding the political responsibility of the President Piñera -and his entire government- in the events that occurred in the social outbreak, and especially with respect to the human rights violations that were established by different international reports and of which the president himself notified during the campaign.
Perhaps the president believes – naively – that this gesture will allow him to end his government with greater approval from that 38% that he has not been able to overcome and following the example of Ricardo Lagos, to whom he constantly turns for advice, and who by delivering an important pro-growth agenda to the The business community was able to overcome the largest crisis of corruption experienced by a government since the return to democracy, but which earned it that “businessmen ended up loving Lagos” and the closing of a presidential cycle with more than 70% approval. Perhaps President Boric believes that with this the Right will join his plan, giving him the possibility of approving a pension reform or a tax pact. Or, he seeks to cultivate that image of a transversal statesman that will allow him to return to the presidency in the not too distant future, we will only see that over time.
The President is wrong if he believes that acts like this elevate him to the quality of a statesman, since easy surrender to the opponent’s discourse has broader political effects: The loss of the original basis of approval or election, the confusion regarding the possibility of carrying out a government program, and the uncertain possibility of recognition that would catapult him into a new presidential adventure. If Bachelet and Piñera had the possibility of a second term, it was not because they agreed with the adversary, but because both cases were presented with agendas and proposals for more radical programs and identified with their base sector.
Politics, even though it is an activity of rationality, where selective interests – positive or negative – are part of the calculation that every ruler must consider to achieve his objectives, is also an activity of convictions, and in that sense the message delivered by the leader can be as acceptable as it is confusing. It would not be surprising if the president ends his term adopting the rhetoric of Octobristism, thus increasing the legacy of post-dictatorship presidents who renounced his convictions.