Many times there has been discussion about the nature of the functions of government, the legitimacy and demands of power, if it is a science or an art, if it requires political or technical talents and even about the validity of parties or ideologies at the time to carry out these tasks, always important and difficult.
The change of government in Chile has brought the issue back to the fore, especially for what Gabriel Boric’s first week in La Moneda has meant. If we analyze the electoral process, the symbols and the social environment, there was undoubtedly a favorable environment for the beginning of the administration of Approve Dignidad, the project originally formed by the Broad Front and the Communist Party, which has managed to bring together the socialist sectors of the old Concertación. However, the first business days have proved more difficult and contradictory than even the leaders of the ruling coalition could have imaginedmany of them young and who have been reaping success after success in their short political lives.
A brief summary illustrates some of the first contradictions of the new government: the visit of the Minister of the Interior Izkia Siches to Araucanía, where she was received with bullets, in an atmosphere of mixed declarations and criticism of the organization of the trip; the contradictions between Minister Giorgio Jackson and Undersecretary Manuel Monsalve regarding the (in)existence of Mapuche political prisoners; the explanations and problems with the King of Spain for the responsibilities in the delay in the change of command ceremony. And there are other issues. Whether due to lack of detail, unforeseen circumstances or differences in criteria, the truth is that rubble and unforced errors quickly appeared, which force us to rethink the political scene.
As is often the case in these circumstances, some analyzes have immediately emerged, which depend on the angle adopted by whoever interprets reality as well as the previous political positions of the different actors. In the government there have been explanations and attempts to control the agenda, as well as an interest in lowering the profile of the problems of the first week. The administration’s detractors have taken advantage of the occasion to multiply their criticism, noting one of the problems that had already emerged during the campaign: it is a young government and little prepared for the important tasks of administering a country. It is what the Executive itself should try to deny in the facts.
It seems clear to me that it is too early to think about definitive consequences of these first days. The government is just oiling the machine and the opposition practically does not appear or is ordering its own mess. The problems raised are not by far the most important in Chile, even more so if we consider the progress of the constituent process, which not only brings news but also its own difficulties. Additionally, the government seems to be well formed, with a solid ministerial team, both by technical and political criteria, with the presence of men and women, and made up of people with vast experience and others who have only been in the public sphere for a few years.
For the same, it seems necessary to make an immediate adjustment, tighten the screws and understand that the government is a very serious thing, a mixture of art and technical knowledge, an activity in which volunteerism is clearly insufficient and where a strong dose of realism and resolution capacity is always required. There are still four long years to go, and there will no doubt be problems and mistakes again, which is why we need to learn quickly and build good teams at all levels, as well as being prepared not only to carry out the program itself, but also to face the difficulties of the road, the adverse political realities and the ensuing problems.
There are two angles that prevent us from adequately seeing the difficult functions of government, which obscure reality and make us suppose –falsely– that things are considerably easier than they really are. The first of these views occurs when parties or conglomerates are in political opposition, because from there everything seems easier than it really is. The parties that are outside the government usually demand rapid solutions from those who hold the Executive Power and that usually imply a considerable expenditure of resources; they usually threaten marches, interpellations and other forms of political action against what they consider to be the selfishness or incapacity of the administrators of power. The other myopic gaze, but one that is expressed with remarkable clarity, appears in the presidential campaigns, periods of overabundance of promises and of certainties of a better future, with the aim of attracting electoral support or due to the misunderstanding of the effective meaning of government work.
As is often the case, with the arrival at La Moneda, the view becomes sharper, just as political realism tends to replace maximalism and irresponsibility. There are three elements that allow us to show this situation for the Chilean case. The first is a factual situation, which refers to the availability of resources, which are characterized by their scarcity: with this, the promises and demagogic actions from the opposition (which seems to assume that money is infinite), become responsible positions from the government. Two cases illustrate this situation: the demand for the minimum salary of $500,000 (five hundred thousand pesos) and the famous withdrawals of 10%. On the first issue, the CUT – chaired by the communist Bárbara Figueroa – ratified only a year ago the need for a figure of half a million, demonstrating against the proposal presented by the government to the National Congress (see The century, “Bárbara Figueroa: the CUT continues to defend the minimum wage of 500 thousand pesos”, May 7, 2021). Now with the PC in government, Finance Minister Mario Marcel has announced that he wants to advance towards that figure for the fourth year of government! The new authorities have also opposed the possibility of the fifth withdrawal of 10%, in circumstances that for months strained the Constitution and the economy with previous withdrawals. It makes sense, although it is still annoying and costly: today they are the government, and thus responsible for public finances, and not an opposition that is sometimes intransigent and irresponsible in the midst of the multiple crises that affected the country.
Added to all this –the reality of governing– are two other objective and very complex problems in today’s Chile. One is that I Approve Dignity, even with the backing of Democratic Socialism, has a clear minority in the National Congress, although it may move towards an occasional majority in the Chamber of Deputies. This will force the Executive to agree on certain reforms, or at least to moderate some of its proposals, to make them more viable. The other is the ongoing path of the Constituent Convention, whose proposals -some of them maximalist, extreme and even undemocratic- could end up altering the entire political landscape, although government authorities have already stated that the success of the new constitution passes to also be a condition for the viability of the government of Gabriel Boric.
The next four years will be difficult and complex, as the government of democracies tends to be in this 21st century. At different times, the administration will be able to resort to the usual wildcards to assign culprits – the Pinochet Constitution, neoliberalism, the right wing – but in different circumstances it will have to answer for its own unfulfilled promises, errors, incapacities or lack of results. It is the difference between being in the streets as opponents of center-right governments or campaigning to promise a better Chile: it is time for La Moneda, where excuses end, because it is necessary to assume the difficult responsibilities of governing and doing it well.
–
