The former minister and leader of the PC, Marcos Barraza, pointed out that in the current political situation of the country even “in the opposition there are voices that demand a high-level debate and the establishment of common minimums” to advance in various matters. Along these lines, he stated that the communists are in favor of dialogue “not only with their own, but with everyone willing to leave their dogmas aside” and emphasized that “it is necessary to have a comprehensive and non-integralist vision of the political scenario in which we develop.” In any case, he warned that “the risk of regression towards authoritarian and populist practices that can imply serious regressions is more evident.” Faced with questions to the Government that it is changing its position, for example by citing Cosena or agreeing with Soquimich, the communist leader stated that “there has not been ambivalent or oscillating in the decisions taken.” In an interview, PC broke the silence regarding Ricardo Lagos’ announcement to retire from public life, and noted that at the time the president “made a self-criticism of himself and his Government” and that now “it is appropriate to positively value this self-critical exercise and respect his decision to distance himself from public life.” Faced with the reactions to the performance of the late former president Sebastián Piñera, Barraza maintained that “we have witnessed strenuous efforts to rewrite the history and biography of former president Piñera” and highlighted that “his political responsibility in the serious violations of human rights is unavoidable.” human events that occurred in Chile” in 2019.
Hugo Guzman. Journalist. “The century”. Santiago. 2/10/2024. I would like to address not so much contingency issues, but rather debates, perspective, based on some opinions and articles expressed in the last week. I start with this: it was said that the Communist Party “remained silent” in the face of former President Ricardo Lagos’ announcement to leave public political life. What is the view of the PC regarding this withdrawal from Lagos?
On several occasions I have referred to former President Ricardo Lagos and his Government in particular with a critical evaluation. Rather than returning to those opinions, I believe it is more relevant to refer to what was stated by the former president himself regarding matters such as Transantiago and the CAE, as experiences of public policies, which, analyzed with the advantage that time allows, and seeing their impacts, agree that the I would rephrase. In a similar sense he refers to the constitutional reforms approved during his mandate when he points out that it would have been convenient to submit them to a plebiscite to try to move the fence a little further towards democratic consolidation. Or the recognition of the shame experienced upon seeing (Augusto) Pinochet rise from his wheelchair and appear defiant upon his return to the country after his arrest in London. That is to say, former President Lagos, with these statements, made a self-criticism of himself and his Government, so I do not think it is appropriate to do anything other than substantively agree with those opinions. In that sense, it is only appropriate to recognize and positively value this self-critical exercise and respect his decision to distance himself from public life.
I say this regarding the funeral of former president (Sebastián) Piñera where a lack of historical and political rigor is accused regarding his two presidential terms. Both were marked by massive demonstrations and social upheavals, the most severe since the return to democracy, where the former president showed signs of serious misunderstanding about the origin of the unrest, and far from responding to legitimate popular demands, he responded with the most serious violations of human rights that have occurred in Chile since the dictatorship. This attempt at historical falsification, of an affluent social grammar, was a resource widely used by former President Piñera himself, who rewrote his political, economic and judicial biography on more than one occasion.
How do you see the figure of former president Sebastián Piñera?
His tragic death makes us sympathize with his family, friends and all those who mourn his death. Another thing is to agree with the attempt to falsify history, which we clearly do not share. We have witnessed strenuous efforts to rewrite the history and biography of former President Piñera, a politician and businessman who did not ignore the same methods to gain a place in business and politics. His political responsibility for the serious human rights violations that occurred in Chile is unavoidable. Likewise, it is unavoidable to refer to the countless conflicts of interest that he had to live with at the same time that he exercised presidential powers. His death is a painful situation, which achieves his exemption from the civil and criminal cases for which he was investigated, but which does not absolve him from the judgment that history and Chileans must make once the shock dissipates. .
Based on these facts, there is transversal talk that there are no longer statesmen in Chile, politicians with lucidity, with high vision, who think about the Chile of the future. Do you share these assessments?
The role in historical cycles is not exclusive to one generation. On the contrary, it is the task of all actors in the political system to maintain the active transformative cycle and with it the reconfiguration and positioning of new leaderships as an expression of a new political time. It is the purpose of the current cycle to find precisely those leaderships considering a balance and crucial aspect: whoever aspires to lead must make the legitimate expectations of change compatible with a transformative meaning and orientation with the strengthening of the institutional capacities of the State.
For this task there are people with total clarity, lucidity and other attributes, across the political and social spectrum. That is to say, in political parties, social movements and also in the world of independents, there is a rigorous and very productive debate to expand the horizon of transformations necessary to achieve more and better conditions of well-being for our entire population. Former President (Michelle) Bachelet is a prominent person in this debate. Ideas such as the Social and Democratic State of Law have been the fruit of this discussion, the mixed provision of public goods and services, the return of the State to the leading role in the economic life of society, etc. These and other matters are the productive fruit of public discussion. Those who accuse of ignorance of these advances shield their lack of strategic vision and lack of vision for the country with whimsical arguments, offering public opinion a poor deliberative quality.
Those who decided to stay in the trench war owe a debt to the country in terms of offering an effective proposal for improvements for all Chileans, not just for a select group. Even in the political sector of the opposition there are voices that demand a high-level debate and the establishment of common minimums, leaving witty slogans, but without depth, aside. It is desirable that this capacity for dialogue that part of the opposition possesses prevail over the ultra-radical attacks of (José Antonio) Kast and his followers.
“Substantive contributions of the communists”
In an interview in El Mercurio, the former president of the UDI, Pablo Longueira, stated that “when the New Majority was created and the PC entered the Government, the ability to reach agreements was lost” and emphasized that “it is very complex to achieve things when “The communists are in a coalition.” You were Minister of Social Development in that Government, and Claudia Pascual Minister of Women and Gender Equality. Now there are two ministers, Camila Vallejo and Jeannette Jara, and one minister, Nicolás Cataldo. Was or is it lost with you in ministries the ability to reach agreements, is it difficult to achieve things with communist ministers in a Government?
In every field of knowledge and national culture it is possible to find substantive contributions from communists for its development. This is a statement that not everyone can say, neither about themselves, nor about the groups they represent, much less someone formalized for corruption. It is necessary to ignore that tantrum. To be a communist is to subscribe to a political philosophy and practice that puts the common good before any other interest. This behavior is easily traceable throughout our history, which spans more than 110 years. More importantly, the results of this procedure are visible: Unrestricted defense of democracy and progress in substantive improvements in community well-being. To achieve this, disagreement with social injustice, social mobilization, and dialogue have been fundamental, dialogue not only with their own, but with everyone willing to leave their dogmas aside to realize the desires for change that citizens demand. political system.
In the Government in which I participated on behalf of the Communist Party, our work was crucial to introduce a sense of urgency and to achieve a transformative agenda at all institutional levels, since matters such as free higher education, labor reform or the termination of pregnancy for three reasons, are long-standing demands. For the installation in the debate of the authority of this and other issues, the participation of the communists in the government was relevant.
Gonzalo Cordero, columnist, who expresses ultra-conservative positions, wrote that now the left is betting on paper magazines layer with own photos of socialitewho replaced Gabriel Salazar with Jorge Baradit, and it is said that today their figures are more concerned about social networks, Tik Tok, being influencers, of their own media agendas, that of their own press media, of developing political theory, training and training, of strengthening newspapers or magazines of content. What is your appreciation of these phenomena?
Own press media? Did he say which ones? I think I don’t need to delve into the concentration of media, and platforms of all kinds that the right or its related groups have. If some official representatives appear in this type of media or platforms, it is the space that is offered and that must be taken advantage of to present their ideas from that platform to a public that expresses itself through these channels. Regarding Baradit or other authors, it is necessary to recognize the enormous stimulus that their books have meant to promote reading in audiences that, without their works, would not have gotten close to that habit. So much so that he is one of the most pirated in the country. Therefore, it is not possible to make malicious distinctions between audiences, but to aim for a democratization of the media that enables the healthy exercise of discussion and exchange of ideas, that reflects the diversity that exists within our community and leaves aside unilaterality, editorial monolingualism existing today. Each generation develops its own means to channel its expressions and raise demands. The use of platforms is a resource that has its codes and we must not be absent from the exchanges that are generated there. Not only is it a smart decision to participate, but it is necessary to be part of these and other debates.
The construction of ideas from the left
I asked Jorge Arrate a week ago if the left has a deficit in intellectual production and he told me yes. Do you share that opinion?
In my opinion, the main production that the left should be dedicated to is the construction of a majority project that allows overcoming the serious structural deficiencies of the prevailing model and prevents inequality and inequity from settling and continuing to increase in a regressive manner. Part of that construction was manifested in the two constitutional processes and particularly in the first constitutional process, in matters as relevant as the recognition and guarantee of social rights, which continue to be a highly demanded need. Parallel to this, it is necessary to build a correlation of favorable social political forces.
Intellectual production must guide the strengthening of a formulation that makes a long-term strategic proposal compatible with tactical dimensions for its operation. In this logic, what is relevant is to arrange theory and practice based on a development model that allows economic growth, the creation of productive employment with environmental sustainability and social sustainability.
In political terms, our orientation must be able to scrutinize the reasons why the extreme right achieves a growing social space in the public debate, without this advance being perceived with the evolutionary risks that it entails. The most radical right-wing positions hegemonize this sector, threatening and increasing the risks for democratic coexistence.
I think you will not ignore that on the left and in the PC there was concern, even objections, with the agreement of the Government and Soquimich for lithium, with removing grace pensions from participants in the social outbreak, with giving in on the pension reform, with agreeing now to cite Cosena, and other cases. How to explain that, are there changes in positions because you are in the Government?
They are different subjects in their origin, development and result. A comprehensive answer cannot be formulated for that, except in one sense: when you are an authority you must always ensure the common good, even more so when the foundation is transformative. In all the matters that you mention, this principle has been attempted as a precautionary measure, with the main obstacle being not having sufficient majorities to achieve a completely favorable agreement. We coexist with a Congress that is very favorable to the right. That is a fact that cannot and should not be ignored. It is necessary to have a comprehensive and non-integral vision of the political scenario in which we operate today. If we are rigorous, there has not been a change in positions. For example, we have the strong conviction that a National Lithium Company is the fundamental tool for the State to sovereignly exercise the protection that corresponds to it over its natural wealth. Well, that ideal is maintained in the signed agreement protocol and restores State sovereignty over lithium. Of course we would like Ponce Lerou not to be part of Soquimich, we hope that his departure takes place in the near future so that the National Lithium Company does not emerge with this initial burden. The same on the issue of pensions, a debate in which we understood that refusing to legislate constituted a serious setback to improve present and future pensions. In this sense, the 18 approved subjects constitute a good baseline for future legislative discussion. Regarding Cosena, keeping in mind that it is only a consultative body, this must be contextualized in the need to signal to the community that the issue of security must be a State matter, and there is a strong dispute with the right in matter gives social perceptions, given the growth of social fears. That involves the implementation of a strategy that incorporates all the institutional actors that are part of criminal policy. This principle remains unchanged and we will have to be very pedagogical in this regard with those who show signs of incomprehension or distrust.
In this sense, there has been no ambivalence or oscillation in the decisions taken, but rather action has been taken to safeguard the general interests in the midst of an absolutely adverse context, but which undoubtedly shows unavoidable progress.
“Criticism is one thing and making decisions that affect the government coalition is another”
Suddenly it seems that the PC is having a hard time separating this from being in a Government and being a left-wing party with a certain independence. It kind of amalgamates everything. In Spain, the PC harshly criticizes the Government of which it is a part in some matters, and nothing serious happens. How to resolve that, or is that not how I put it?
Criticism is one thing and making decisions that negatively affect the government coalition of which one is a part is another. In the case you mention, for example, Podemos voted against the unemployment benefit, which forced the head of Government, Pedro Sánchez, to negotiate with the regionalist parties to achieve approval. In the case of our Congress, our parliamentary bench, our vote has never jeopardized the approval of a significant measure for the Government’s legislative agenda. Coalition work requires honest, sincere dialogue. Fraternal criticism in those matters that generate disagreements is precisely part of that honesty and sincerity. The opposite would not exactly be coalition work, but rather an expression of politically unscrupulous behavior with unsuspected social consequences.
The Government, of which the Communist Party is a part, has two years left. There are endless objectives, challenges and serious problems. But then the story continues. Where would you set the CP’s points of thought for five, ten or twenty years in the future, beyond the current situation, where are the challenges of responses to this new society or this new people as it has been defined?
Each historical period defines its protagonists, its tools to build, its contradictions and its processes to address them. We communists will make our contribution at the level of ideas and organization with the holding of our party Congress. Now, the main challenge is the construction of a program that allows overcoming the contradictions of this period, conditions that will undoubtedly allow the consolidation of a deep and wide-ranging democracy. The main risk for this is that not the entire political spectrum is committed to this process of democratic consolidation. On the contrary, the risk of regression towards authoritarian and populist practices that can imply serious regressions is increasingly evident. The defeat inflicted on the Republicans and Chile Vamos in the December 17 plebiscite is an expression of sublime popular wisdom, but if we are not capable of offering concrete responses to the most heartfelt citizen demands, this rejection may become an opportunity. to neofascism to legitimize itself.
