The last one was one of La Moneda’s worst weeks in many ways. The pandemic is not establishing a ceasefire and the healthcare system is on the red alert due to the small number of ICU beds across the country, as infection records continue to break. However, the administration of Health Minister Enrique Paris was made to the point that, given the magnitude of the health crisis, he would not let go of the possibility of a possible constitutional accusation. In this scenario, the Government had to go out to support Paris public opinion through its spokesperson, Jaime Bellolio, a gesture that was unable to neutralize the various mistakes made by the former School of Medicine (Colmed).
As if the epidemic weren’t a big enough problem for any government, La Moneda thinks how the power of influence in front of its conglomerate dissipates and risks a possible defeat with every project offered by the Executive. The cases that questioned it and placed the focus of criticism on both Presidents, such as the third withdrawal of 10% lost again by the political struggle, or the expansion of the Social Welfare Network, where there are figures from the right. Give the account. All this thorny panorama has been studied in detail. Counter Social anthropologist, political analyst and researcher, Pablo Ortúzar at the Institute for Social Studies (IES).
– Where do you think the mistake of trying to postpone the April elections well beyond the planned date and all the consequences of this?
In retrospect, the government’s biggest mistake seems to be not closing the borders or providing strict quarantine for passengers when the risk posed by the new variants of the virus begins to become visible. There were times in the summer when it was easier to get from Santiago to Rio de Janeiro than from Santiago to Chimbarongo. Today, our scenario is like in the UK in December-January: a frenetic increase in cases due to the aggression of these new species. The need to change the elections came as a surprise, as this was not foreseen.
How do you evaluate the leadership of the government in this second wave of the pandemic? How responsible does the country find itself in the middle of the vaccination process in a situation where intensive care beds collapse and daily contagion is high?
In vaccination, there is great value in the proper management of an old infrastructure that has been built with a lot of effort and investment in the last thirty years, as well as the auxiliary coordination of state, public and private sector actors. This is a very happy thing, a true national success that reflects the gentle face of our development strategy based on open markets and global partnerships, leaving lessons for founding debates.
There is also a problem in communicating the role it should play in the epidemic to the citizen: many rules, many gaps and many exceptions. Now there is a great deal of hypocrisy in public discourse as well, people who do not pursue any symptoms for pure antisocial motivation and then apologize by appealing to the cause of those who either attribute everything to others or cannot follow indications well for economic reasons.
On the other hand, there is an enormous amount of plunder in the media: unfortunate characters like the psychologist Bacigalupe who tries to make a selection and television career disguised as experts, preaches vicious apocalypse, and whose success seems ultimately and deviantly tied. death of as many people as possible. There are people celebrating on TV when there is bad news! It’s hard to imagine anything more distorted and depressing.
Finally, there is a lot octubrizasyon To read it all, it was worsened by the closeness of the elections. Let’s say it is very difficult to manage the pandemic under these conditions. Both the atmosphere of individual responsibility and national unity are lacking. I would say the government has done this wrong on many issues, but citizens, media and political class have been equally disappointed.
In the middle of the worst moment of the pandemic, do you have a leadership like that of Minister Enrique Paris?
Paris is in a very difficult situation, she is the easiest scapegoat. But I don’t think anyone else could do any better at the office.
– How do you evaluate Enrique Paris’ rule?
-Right. She looks a little tired and disappointed at times, but I think it’s important to get her head off the media and focus on talking clearly to ordinary people who are far less thugs than the Twitter world that dominates today’s world. public structuring.
“La Moneda doesn’t have a good political scene”
How much does little citizen support to the government or constant criticism of President Piñera’s political leadership affect the level of cohesion in Chile? Are we going to all the elections of the year with a perspective?
The personality of the president also had the effect of almost completely absorbing the failures of his government. The public generally complains against Piñera, not against the political alliance in power. There are many well-profile right-wing candidates, and hardly anyone controls them for government action. Everything suggests that Piñera right will not be a very relevant actor in the near future. The question is whether their henchmen will extend their influence to new environments. They clearly want it. So the issue will ultimately depend on the political and programmatic power of the alternatives.
What does the government say about the political moment of the election, about the rapid reluctance of every major proposal within the ruling party? (Social plans or quarantines).
A very discredited government with little political capital will be attacked by its allies, who are already facing the new political cycle, during the election period. In the minds of the government parties, the Government has already happened.
– What do you think are the worst and best scenarios for La Moneda in the four elections to be held in May – voters, mayors, councilors and district governors?
-La Moneda doesn’t have a good political scene. Here he will not be inherited on that plane. Even if the right wing wins, it will do so away from the president. However, keeping the pandemic under control and transferring control in a democratic and timely manner and holding the elections seem to be great successes after the last years we have seen.
-I understand the importance of unity for Chile. Come on, how much damage could the extent of disqualification among presidential candidates in the industry?
There’s something like boxing in political competition: blows are given and taken, attacks are allowed and others are punished, and whoever gets bitten or dispersed often loses. I see nothing out of the ordinary today in the sigh of the right. No blow to the waist. More robust political definitions and more concrete proposals are missing.
Do you pay attention to how much this action can determine the future of the coalition? It’s about messianic, Twitter and morning politics, being a victim, populist and lack of street.
– I wish your discussion was more important than the topics. However, for the same reason, there is no material there for a major break. Candidates may be bitten or badly held up for a while in the midst of so many fights, but if the differences are not fundamental, if common places in the election dispute are, it’s hard to imagine that it “signals the future of the coalition.” is to continue to have. And this means that alliances are not broken by personal quarrels or because this or that candidate is stung. This is a typical personalist political form, where instead of parties fan clubs.
– How different are the projects presented by the different presidential candidates of Chile Vamos, are the different souls of the right really represented?
The offer is diverse, but it’s also a time of transition. The new rights are still arming themselves and trying to define themselves. It is half clear that traditional Chicago unionism is dead, but it is not clear that another trend was at the peak of their strength at the time. These are interesting times.
-So, how can a right that tries to emerge between populist and anti-populist out of solidarity, as you have described, be maintained?
-Not because nothing happened. There are projects that are maturing and trying to be reinforced. It’s not about pure improvisation. So the point is fun.
– How do you interpret the game of the Lavín-Desbordes tandem to confront the proposal for expanding the social network announced by the President in the national chain?
-Electoral strategy options.
– What is really behind the Chilean Vamos’ refusal to officially invite Sebastián Sichel to participate in the primary elections in a letter (as requested)? It is not very convincing to have no time or to be remembered in other elections …
– Trips and relaxation without much relevance.
-Sichel and Ignacio Briones seem to be people trying to hang on to this investment of government continuity, what risks or benefits might this entail?
Instead, they try to be a reflection of the liberal, anti-populist and technocratic productivity discourse. None of them are offered as a continuation of Piñera. Many analysts consider the speech dead and buried, given the strong popular anti-elitist rhetoric. But I still think it has a few strengths: Technicians, experts, and academics are not the most memorable when criticizing the political and economic elite. In fact, the most popular profile in the founding polls was that of a non-political expert.