“The right does not have proposals, it only has restrictions”: Marcos Barraza

The member of the Political Commission of the Communist Party maintained that “it is evident that the right has stressed and obstructed the transformative policies of this Government, it is evident that the opposition has a very restrictive agenda in social, political and economic terms” and, in that line, added that “what is happening is an attempt by the right to stigmatize social demands, to penalize them, to equate social demands with violence.” He expressed that “the counterpoint is that the left must strive to have a project that provides solutions to the main social demands that exist in Chile.” The former Minister of Social Development, also said that faced with the possibility of advancing reforms such as pensions, “the ball is on the capacity of the social movement to support the initiatives, to make the transformations prevail.” He emphasized that “if there is no active social movement, with the capacity to convene and mobilize, there is no capacity to sustain the transformative agenda.” Looking ahead to the next Public Account of President Gabriel Bloric, he stated that “it will be clear that the Government has deployed its best efforts in terms of implementing policies committed to the people of Chile.”

Hugo Guzman. Journalist. “The century”. Santiago. 18/5/2024. This weekend there is a world meeting of the extreme right in Spain, José Antonio Kast goes, how do you see these movements of the extreme right?

It is evident that there is an offensive by the extreme right whose purpose is to maintain the patterns of political and cultural dominance and the standards of exacerbated accumulation of economic groups. The traditional right, because it is not something only of the extreme right, has radicalized its exclusive positions, it can be seen in Chile, in Latin America, and right-wing offensives such as the one promoted by (Javier) Milei in Argentina are observed that do not exhaust themselves in national borders, but rather seek articulation at a continental and planetary level.

It seems that it goes hand in hand with stopping reformist, transformative projects. Here it is suggested that there is obstructionism in the face of reforms, although they deny it, saying that the projects are bad.

The counterpoint to this is that the left and the center-left must strive to have a project that provides solutions to the main social demands that exist in Chile and in the world. Make economic growth compatible with development, with quality of life, with environmental sustainability. Deepen economic, social and cultural rights and not fall into regressions and historical setbacks such as those proposed by the right and the extreme right. And that is not a task of a specific sector of the democratic forces, but rather requires a joint and shared effort. In that sense, the signal given by the Government parties, including the Christian Democrats, for having a single list in the mayoral elections is very powerful, because it establishes a common purpose on how to confront the right and avoid a historic setback. . What cannot happen is that from the left, from the center-left, the risk of this democratic regression is not seen. Now, this risk is not only faced with an electoral alliance, but also requires a programmatic deepening that puts the main social urgencies at the center. There are debts in terms of quality of life, income, decent work, productivity with added value, on waiting lists. It is imperative, moreover, to achieve political and social unity among political parties, among social movements, to make reforms viable. The right, so far, has been effective in obstructing the legislative agenda. And this agenda does not accelerate without the participation of social movements.

It is established that the short Isapres law did not go well, it is not clear how the pension law and the fiscal agreement will end, and there is no real progress in the social legislative agenda. It is blamed on the Government, and it is repetitive that there is no correlation of forces in Congress. How to respond to that?

I believe that the ball is on the capacity of the social movement to support the initiatives and reforms, to make the transformations prevail.

But we are facing a retreating social movement.

I think it’s gradually finding its way. The National Strike of the CUT (Unitary Central Workers) in April, then the mobilization of May Day, the capacity of university students in solidarity with the Palestinian people, are efforts that are recomposing the mobilizing capacities, they are restoring them. Now, the truth is that if there is no active social movement, with the capacity to convene and mobilize, there is no capacity to sustain the transformative agenda. I am going to give an example: the information that was provided regarding the 123 thousand people who retired in 2023 is that 50% have pensions of 91 thousand pesos; In the case of women, the self-financed pension is 43 thousand pesos. The average pension is 158 thousand pesos in global terms. That piece of information, a few years ago, would have been moving and mobilizing, and would have urged the right to have a more flexible position. But the right shows indifference in the face of an aggressive reality in terms of quality of life. He denies evidence and dares to try to delay the vote on the pension system in the Senate committee because he has sharpened his positions. Well, to counteract these capabilities it obviously requires a Government with will, but it also requires a social movement with the capacity for mobilization. In this, the dialogue, the bridge established between the Government and the social movement is decisive.

Is the next Public Account of President Gabriel Boric challenging for the Government?

I think it will be evident that the Government has deployed its best efforts in terms of implementing policies committed to the people of Chile. Now, if the tax reform does not advance, it is because the right has had bitter obstructionism, if the pension reform has not advanced, it is because the right has expressed brutal resistance. What we have seen these days regarding the announcement that a project is going to be presented for the forgiveness, adjustment and new financing in terms of CAE (Credit with State Guarantee) is that it has already encountered furious resistance from the right, in circumstances that people affected by the CAE, or the CORFO (Development Corporation) credits are 2 million 800 thousand, and in the case of the CAE they are facing brutal abuses. The Government is taking charge of this reality, but there is also a need for greater coordination between the Government and the social movement.

How do you see the low approval of President Gabriel Boric, these controversies regarding him changing his mind, the episode of the dog “Matapacos”, questions about his management? What factors do you see around that?

You have to focus rather on the factors. In this case it is evident that there is an offensive on the right to undermine, to weaken, to incorporate divisive wedges within government forces, with respect to the presidential figure. There is a systematic effort in that direction. This does not mean being obedient, on the contrary, loyalty to the Government is expressed in presenting the points of view from the parties and pointing out when there are disagreements and processing them. In the case of the communists, evidently what mobilizes us is the fulfillment of the Government program, the commitment and not succumbing to easy criticism and rather concentrating on how we make viable the policies with a focus on rights that the Government has committed.

Speaking of civil society, or situations of sectors of the population, in recent weeks there have been proposals from human rights groups regarding decisions that are dangerous for democracy, there is concern about evictions from population occupations, and serious labor conflicts have been seen.

There I return to the initial part of this interview, because it is evident that there is an articulation of the right and the extreme right to violate rights and that politically it can translate into a historical setback. In terms of human rights, in the broadest dimension, economic, social, cultural, civil or first generation rights, it is evident that the right tries to legitimize violating discourse and measures. It does so when some Republican representatives insensitively mock the violation of human rights experienced by the conscripts in Putre, when it is attempted that the situation of the conscript Franco Vargas, resulting in death, be heard by military courts and not by ordinary justice. It is evident that the situation of the Cobreloa players who incurred massive sexual abuse has not been treated with the social sensitivity that it should be treated. The attempt to generate impunity for those responsible for crimes against humanity shows the offensive of the extreme right. Now, in terms of social rights, and based on your question about evictions, the country has to connote the situation of people who live in camps as a social problem. The media establishes that there is crime in the camps, and there is crime in areas that are not camps. The situation of housing deficit is not addressed, and in this we must be emphatic. The emergency plan that the Government has proposed is robust, forceful, a few months ago it was carrying out 105 thousand homes, there are 265 thousand, it must be seen as an issue of social rights.

From the opposition and conservative sectors this “Octoberism” thing is being installed and making demands or mobilizing socially has to do with that. A wedge is put in there.

The first thing is that I don’t like to talk about “Octoberism”, I think it is a definition of right-wing sociology, because it tries to connote the social outbreak of 2019 as a problem of violence. And it turns out that the scope of this process that originates in Chile as a political process has explanations and foundations in the profound inequalities of Chilean society, in economic concentration, in extreme accumulation and the deterioration of the quality of life of the population, in lagging areas, on health waiting lists, in short, in a situation of inequality and abuse in Chile. I don’t think talking about “Octoberism” is reasonable from the point of view of the left. What is happening is an attempt by the right to stigmatize social demands, to penalize them, to equate social demands with violence and that is not the case. What the vast majority of the social movement demands is adjusted to fair and legitimate demands.

In recent weeks there has been a debate over political reform. What was seen was controversy over percentages of representation, there was talk of small parties and large parties, percentages to enter Congress, sanctions for legislators who leave their parties. Thinking about a real reform of the political system, isn’t the discussion very partial, very tied to specific things of interest only to the parties?

There is a starting element in your question. It would be inexplicable for the citizens, for the people of Chile, if the pension reform is not legislated, which improves the income of pensioners from the present, and a reform of the political system is prioritized, where the purposes are not consistent with the deepening of democracy. First, the debate is not about the rules of the system, it must be comprehensive. And problematizing the political system only in procedures, such as what is the percentage for the legalization of a party, is clearly insufficient. A deeper debate on representativeness and the emergence of new ideas about the quality of democracy and participation is required. The approaches that have been given to the debate from the right clearly seek to restrict the levels of political participation, the levels of representation, and postpone debates of social urgency, such as pensions, tax reform and the strengthening of public health.

A few months ago it seemed that the opposition had a good prognosis for the municipal and gubernatorial elections. Is that so, or is everything open?

I think the result is open. It is evident that the right has stressed and obstructed the transformative policies of this Government, it is evident that the opposition has a very restrictive agenda in social, political and economic terms. It is also true that the right has no proposals, it only has restrictions. That is perceived by the citizens. The starting point in this is that the result of the last plebiscite showed the weaknesses of the right and the differences with transformative ideas. In this context, the fact that the right does not have a common proposal on municipal matters, on mayoralties, is a weakness. At the same time it is a strength of democratic and transformative forces. In that sense, I believe that the field is more favorable, more open, for the forces that support the Government, including the Christian Democrats.