“We are very expectant regarding the entry of the law that condones the CAE”: Luis Cuello

The head of the parliamentary bench of the Communist Party pointed out that this initiative is necessary because “it is born from a real concern, because there are hundreds of thousands of people who studied in higher education and were left in debt, with a high cost in their lives, in their income”. He stated that in Congress “the priority must be placed on the social agenda” and not on issues such as political reform, and along these lines he stated that “effective administrative measures are required” to meet people’s needs.

Hugo Guzman. Journalist. “The century”. Santiago. 5/21/2024. What view do you have regarding the CAE (Credit with State Guarantee) forgiveness project, the scenarios that are presented?

We are very expectant regarding the entry of that bill that condones the CAE. First, because it is a campaign commitment, from the program of President Gabriel Boric, and that is born from a real concern, because there are hundreds of thousands of people who studied in higher education and were left in debt, with a high cost in their lives, in their income. Second, because this has to do with the idea that education is a social right and that the financing structure based on bank loans responds more to a paradigm of education as a market good and that must be overcome. It is important that we begin to seriously debate a new financing mechanism for higher education that prioritizes, above all, the development and projection of the State’s universities.

How do you see the issue of financing this project?

It will be important to know the details of the condonation, that is, if it will not be universal, if it will tend to look at the socioeconomic reality of each person, specific data, and have a clear schedule regarding the condonation. We imagine that due to the high cost of this, it will not be everything immediately, nor universal, and it will be relevant to know these aspects. That’s why I told you that we are looking forward to starting to deal with this project.

How is the discussion of the anti-terrorist law going?

The bill has just arrived from the Senate, discussion is just beginning in the Chamber of Deputies, and we must see very carefully that the modifications do not imply risks for respect for human rights nor do they introduce elements that attempt to mix terrorist phenomena and the new threats that the State has, with the persecution of ideas or social movements. We are examining the project in detail.

And the postponement or not of the Ministry of Public Security?

It is essential that this project advances, that it be dispatched from Congress and that this ministry comes into operation. Because the point of approving these laws, especially in matters of public security, is that we have institutions that can provide responses, that are more effective, that can have a better deployment, that respond to the specificity of the matter. That is why it is essential that this is implemented in this Government and not wait for the next one.

Discussions continue to take place regarding the security agenda, there is talk of fast track (fast track) in legislative security agenda.

There are two times. Because last year a security agenda was agreed between the Government and the presidents of the Senate and the Chamber where there was no debate with the parliamentary groups, some contents were left pending, and now a dialogue between the groups was held again, there were meetings With the Government, we have made some proposals regarding the priorities to be processed. But it is an ongoing debate. We must also look at dimensions of public security that have not been addressed, for example, in 2022 we presented a bill regarding the truckers’ strike, which was much larger than the one now, to create a tool that allows the State to effectively pursue these threats to security, which is the blocking of roads, with issues such as suspending the Circulation Permit of trucks for up to six months when they block roads totally or partially. Today there are no tools to clear the roads.

At this time, what is the possibility of really moving forward in the reform of the political system?

It is not a matter that is a priority. Today the priority must be placed on the social agenda, on the pension reform, which has been postponed for a long time, and the need to raise more resources to meet public needs. The political reform is based on diagnoses such as that there is a high political fragmentation in Congress, but some conservative sectors use the debate to lead towards a regression, to return to the binomial system, that is, restrict democracy. We think that the important thing is to aim for proposals that broaden and deepen democracy, for example, installing the tool of the plebiscite, thinking about the option of revoking authorities when they deviate from their initial commitments, that should be part of the debate of a political reform. We must go step by step, without failing to notice that there is an interest on the part of conservative sectors to go back.

Of course, these social agenda reforms are stalled. It is even said that the pension and tax reforms would not be achieved in this legislative period.

They seem stagnant and that is why it is not very sensible to propose other reforms that have nothing to do with what the Chilean people are demanding. Regarding pensions, it is important that the Government maintains the momentum, with urgency for the project to be voted on and that the senators, facing the country, show which side they are on, if they are on the side of the AFP (Pension Fund Administrators). or on the side of millions of retirees who month after month are condemned to receive miserable pensions. And with each month that passes, time runs out, and the suffering of millions of people stretches out.

Speaking of private consortiums, the so-called “short Isapres law” was approved; there was criticism, as well as positive comments. It was said that there was something positive for Fonasa.

First, for us it was important that the Supreme Court’s ruling (for the Isapres to return the money unduly charged to users) was fulfilled. The right tried to install ideas that excessively favored the Isapres, such as installing mutualization, which implied a very significant reduction in the total debt of the Isapres, and that did not advance thanks to the fact that the ruling party resorted to the Constitutional Court. Now, it is true that regarding the short law there are aspects that are quite negative, such as the extension of the term for debt payment, which went from ten to thirteen years. It is also true that, within a correlation of forces that is unfavorable to us, the right imposed several aspects in this short law that we do not like at all. However, the ruling party was able to install important issues that benefit people such as the strengthening of Fonasa (National Health Fund) and the strengthening of a complementary coverage mechanism for Fonasa affiliates and catastrophic insurance that benefits the people, to those who are in Fonasa. Faced with a law that contains negative components and that at the same time achieves something to strengthen the public, we could not refuse to approve it and that is what we did.

The senator and president of the UDI (Independent Democratic Union) maintained that they have the will to establish a legislative agenda to move forward, mentioning security and economic issues. How do you see that provision?

You would have to see the subtext of that. Because sometimes the right says that it agrees with raising pensions, however, in practice this is not the case. They are headlines that seem well-bred, but I would expect to know details of these types of proposals and in what aspects they say that progress can be made. Rather, I am distrustful, because in practice what we have observed in these two years of legislative period is that the right has become a kind of spokesperson for the large economic groups and they have defended their interests tooth and nail.

There is constant debate or analysis of how Congress works. How would you define the current state of the legislative agenda in general terms? Are things slow, frozen, or can we move forward and be optimistic?

It would start from a diagnosis that is from the beginning of this legislative period. The distribution of forces is disadvantageous for progressive and left-wing ideas, that is the reality, and in the Senate that got worse since there was a tie and now there is a majority on the right. However, we have been able to advance on substantive issues such as the law of 40 hours of weekly working hours that began to be implemented, increasing the minimum wage to 500 thousand pesos, which was something that was achieved based on a dialogue with the actors. main ones, and some other initiatives. Despite a difficult scenario, with a very obstructionist right wing, which is dedicated to boycotting the Government, we have been able to advance on issues that are important to the people. Without prejudice to that, and speaking of improving the situation of Chileans, I believe that administrative measures are required that are effective. There are problems like in public education, where more resources are required, we have a severe transportation crisis in the regions, there are health problems, and that sometimes does not happen through laws but through political will to break out of the mold that limits the State in transferring resources to meet public needs.

Questioning persists, even coming from government spokespersons, that projects such as the remission of the CAE and others have an electoral purpose on the part of the Government, that they are intended for its 30% electoral and political base.

They are petty views that ignore something fundamental, that the Government of President Boric obtained a large vote, broad popular support, and that support had to do with support for a program, that is, for a set of ideas for change, transformation, to improve people’s quality of life. And every time compliance with that program is placed centrally, criticism will arise from conservative sectors that would like to keep everything as it is. Furthermore, there is an interest in denying salt and water to the Government to prevent it from being able to show results, but with this they condemn and punish people. That, at some point, may have an electoral cost for those who oppose the Government fulfilling its program.