The ministerial spokeswoman for Gabriel Boric’s government, Camila Vallejo (35 years old, Santiago), receives EL PAÍS just five weeks before the referendum that will decide the fate of the new proposed constitution in a process led by the right. It is the second attempt after the failure of the first, in which 62% of citizens overthrew him in September 2022 in a process led by various leftists. He grants it in his office in La Moneda, where the president is currently leaving. Although they are active in different parties – he in the Broad Front and she in the Communist Party – the president refers to her as his “traveling companion.” They have been in power for 19 months and still have two years and a little more left in their term.
Questions. What is Chile like?
Answer. Chile is recovering and making progress. It was a very turbulent time and we are getting back on our feet. Neither we nor our country can become complacent because we have many unanswered questions, but we can approach them with a different spirit based on recent experiences.
Q Are you referring to the organization of the Pan American Games (the president’s approval rating rose four points to 37% after the event)?
R. A good example is the Pan American Games. It may sound like a cliché, but when we say that we can achieve great victories when we play as a team, it is true. The private world with the state brought us together, we worked as a team and we succeeded, to hold these games together with an engaged civil society that filled the stadiums. The evidence shows that despite political differences, when we focus on very clear, people-focused goals, things become clear. If not – if we fall into political engagement and trench warfare – no one wins: neither the government, nor the parliament, the opposition or the people.
Q Is it realistic to believe that in today’s Chilean politics you can play as a team? It seems that the bun oven is not there.
R. There are two options: either we say that the oven for the buns is not there, or how we prepare the oven for the buns. And we insist that, in the face of social and political fragmentation, the answer to progress lies in greater cohesion, unity and teamwork. Every man for himself is the absolute failure of all.
Q Is what you are doing a call to the opposition?
R. It is a call to everyone. Obviously to the opposition, because this cannot only be viewed in terms of one term of government. If we are not able to reform pensions now to increase them and build a system with greater social security for people, if we cannot advance the fiscal compact, it could be a virtual defeat for the government. But the most important thing is that it would be a defeat for the people and an open issue that will continue to cause great discomfort to the population, which will have an impact on the next governments and, worst of all, on the democratic institutions.
Q They were a tough opponent of the previous government (Sebastián Piñera, 2018-2022).
R. After the social outbreak of 2019, we all have learning to do. The outbreak changed the perspective. After the outbreak, the focus was on reaching agreement on issues that had previously left us deeply distant. Without prejudice to the fact that we will not stop supporting criticism of human rights violations, even if we are told that we have been very critical of them. But we advocate the need to look at things differently in politics after the outbreak and not fall prey to the logic of vendetta.
Q What does it refer to?
R. One can respect the current opposition’s criticism of our role as opposition at the time, but in the face of this criticism one must ask the question whether this gives them the right to be equal to or worse than us. If we act an eye for an eye in politics, we will all become blind. And again the losers are the people, the democracy and the institutions.
Camila Vallejo, Minister of the General Secretariat of the Government of Chile.fernanda requena
Q In a way, you are asking the right not to make the same mistakes you made as the opposition.
R. If they consider that we as the opposition have made mistakes, then one would hope that they do not repeat those mistakes. Because I’m starting to debate whether they were mistakes or not… There are things that are. There were probably very critical moments in the tone of the debate, but the central question at the end is: do they want to repeat the same history or do they want the country to evolve and us to evolve together in the way politics is done? ? This development is missing in some sectors.
Q When President Boric received the new constitutional proposal on Monday, he said: “Chile must decide whether this is a proposal that unites us.” What is the message?
R. Apart from the fact that the President respects his role and his responsibilities towards the presidential institution in the face of a process that must apply to everyone and the importance of promoting an information campaign by the executive branch and the fact that people can access the vote in an informed manner The big challenge presented to us by the September 2022 referendum was whether we would be able to have a constitution that would unite the country and represent Chile in its diversity. This was now not reflected in the way the proposal was put forward and is a fact which is the reason for how the vote was carried out. [el texto fue apoyado en el pleno del Consejo Constitucional por los 33 votos de las derechas y rechazada por los 17 del oficialismo], for the agreements that were not given. But the final say in the vote will be the citizens.
Q The first proposal was also not a unified text, and yet the government was openly about to approve it.
R. Not the government. We had positions as citizens and when they asked us, we spoke out against what we thought was a historic opportunity, but the citizens were the ones who determined what they really wanted. [lo rechazó por un 62%]. Therefore, people must say whether this proposal meets their demands. It is not about the government, but about the Chilean people, who must express themselves in the elections on December 17, based on past experiences.
Q And will you as a citizen tick “For” or “Against”?
R. We live in complete liberation today.
Q Referring to the previous process, which you describe as a “historic opportunity,” analyst Alfredo Joignant wrote: “A modicum of honesty forces us to recognize that all leftists, each in their own way, have missed the opening window of opportunity .” by the social outbreak” and “It is on the left to look for the main person responsible for all this embarrassment.” What do you think?
R. We have to wait for the result on December 17th to know whether what is failing is failing and who is responsible for this failure. I’m having a hard time getting over this.
Q If a conservative text is accepted or rejected and the current constitution remains in force, that would be bad news for the left.
R. Bad news for the country. If our country has come to the conclusion that it wants a new constitution and it is still pending, of course we do not know whether it will be achieved or not… But the reasons why it will be achieved or not, will be part of the post analysis from December 17th. .
Q So it doesn’t match the analysis of the left’s responsibility.
R. I think that in the left and progressive world there was obviously responsibility in the first constitutional process. But the second process we have now was a transversal agreement. So what I’m saying is that we obviously missed that opportunity in the first trial. The country had to be given a second chance, and this second chance was given across the board, not just on the left.
Q Are you among those who believe that insecurity would increase in Chile if the new constitutional proposal were rejected?
R. No, I believe that regardless of the outcome, whether we like it or not, at least in the short and medium term a process has been completed that creates certainty in Chile. It is clear what lies ahead the next day in terms of the constitutional debate. And what ensures greater security in our country is that the major issues currently in parliament can be resolved or not: the tax issue, pensions.
Q And if it is rejected, a text that, as President Boric said, was drawn up behind closed doors by four generals will remain in force. I had the opportunity to change it.
R. The President said that and also talked about the entire process that took place afterwards. We know that the origin of the current constitution is in the dictatorship, but that there have been reforms, that it is necessary to change it, but citizens must decide whether the proposal is better, worse or the same. Of course, democratic processes are progress for a country. Well, one thing is the process and another is what the proposal implies – the content – and that is defined by people.
Gabriel Boric and Camila Vallejo, on May 19, 2023. Esteban Felix (AP)
Q What did the fall of the conventions mean to you politically and personally? [que ha impactado sobre todo en el oficialismo]what was classified as corruption by the government itself?
R. First of all, tremendous anger. The human effort behind the implementation of a government program, despite all the difficulties that exist, of all the people who dedicate many hours of their lives to make that program work. And suddenly a group of people comes along who are likely to commit mistakes and crimes – that’s what the justice system has to determine – or who violate honesty and undo so much progress. That’s angry. Secondly, it was obviously a very hard blow to the government. And we took this moment very seriously and still approach it with great seriousness and responsibility. But it was also an opportunity to improve.
Q An opportunity?
R. The Living Democracy case highlighted the entire institutional gap that exists in the modality of resource transfer for camps with charitable foundations. And thanks to this, today we have the results of the Jaraquemada Commission and we have amendments to the budget law. The big debate is to what extent the greater controls we introduce may or may not weaken our ability to manage spending, and it is the balance that we must maintain. A complex but necessary circle closes. Because the origin of it was thought by the previous government [de Piñera] In order to make the execution of spending more flexible and efficient, we ended up creating these institutional gaps that lend themselves to acts of corruption.
Q The fact that there is a certain institutional design does not mean that there is corruption or unethical actions. The previous government did not have these cases.
R. Now one appeared. Implementation began in the last year of the government, but this remains to be studied. I will not talk about the intentions, but about when this modality began. It’s an institutional design without much central control – little or nothing – and lax rules that allows for discretion and that some saw as an opportunity to abuse that space. It’s not a matter of interpretation, it’s reality and it’s in the Comptroller’s Office report since when this model of transferring resources to charitable foundations began, which was actually implemented in the previous administration. And another thing is who, how and when they exploited this institutional loophole to commit fraud.
Q And that’s especially what’s happening in this government [con fundaciones ligadas al oficialismo].
R. It happened with Living Democracy, with that other case I mention, and the rest is basically in the State Department.
Q Such things always end badly: they lead to bleeding in the government, the opposition calls for leaders and ultimately ministers have to be removed. Why did Giorgio Jackson leave and not Housing Minister Carlos Montes, who finds himself in an equally politically complex situation?
R. A tremendous injustice was committed against Secretary Jackson because he was accused of crimes that he did not commit in a particularly offensive manner. And what happened today with Minister Montes was very predictable. It does not surprise me that, given the opportunity presented by the Auditor-General’s report, they want to go back to the discussion on the question of heads and not on the substance of the matter, which was also the case It is about the legislative agenda, which the parliamentarians themselves have to implement.
Q You remember the Pan American Games and there was a group of Cuban athletes who preferred to stay in Chile and not return to Cuba with their delegation. Why do young Cubans decide to desert?
R. It is not my job to interpret the motives of the 4,000 people who seek refuge in Chile every year.
Q From his party, the PC, they explained it as a shortage due to the US blockade, but this interpretation ignores political and human rights problems in Cuba.
R. I just can’t know what’s behind the reasons. The parties can express their opinions, but I do not speak on behalf of the Communist Party, but as Minister of State.
Q As a citizen, politician and minister, do you recognize that there are human rights problems in Cuba?
R. As a pastor, it is not possible for me to interpret the motives of those who ask for refuge because I do not know them.
Q How much have you and the president changed in these 19 months in government?
R. Before becoming president, he underwent enormous human development, which enabled him to carry out political activities and work in government. And I am very satisfied with my job, even if it is difficult. I really like being where I am and feeling like I can collaborate on a shared project.
Q You always deny it, but you’re a politician and it’s hard to believe you wouldn’t aspire to the presidency one day.
R. Why is it so obvious that a politician or person wants to be president? There is no more difficult and pressurized position than being the first authority in a country.