Last week was complex for the Government. The official discrepancies in the framework of the discussion of the Naín-Retamal Law in the Chamber of Deputies and Deputies, added to the concern of international organizations, such as that of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, regarding legitimate defense privileged, one of the most commented measures of this initiative, which invokes the presumption of the justified use of service weapons and other means of defense by uniformed officers and plainclothes police.
In the midst of this debate, the Deputy and President of Social Convergence (CS), Diego Ibáñez, denies that his sector is against the strengthening of the work of the Carabineros, but that it is necessary to regulate the issue with a good technique to avoid falling into populism. “There are standards to protect human dignity and also to protect the trajectory of the States of Law, seeking to regulate the monopoly of the State’s force. So, to say that by occupying this monopoly of force, problems that are deeper and multifactorial are solved, it is sell smoke to the public,” he says.
In addition, the leader of the Broad Front (FA) maintains that “if society enters into a spiral of fear, it becomes immobilized and does not prepare for transformations”, referring to the security crisis that today monopolizes media attention, as opposed to to a constituent process that has begun with the silent work of the Expert Commission, with very little citizen interest –according to the polls-. “That’s why, the constituent process has to offer certainties, pursuing profound and structural changes, but with stability. And that is going to be a challenge that is not given, but that we must go to dispute it so that the problems of violence in society can be solved in an integral way, with a Social and Democratic State of Law, that addresses in depth the solutions that the public requires today”, says Deputy Ibáñez.
-As for the Naín-Retamal Law and the controversial article referring to privileged legitimate defense, how much of this project do you think can be modified by indications in the Senate?
-We are left with a bitter feeling, because it is a law that violates democratic principles, as pointed out by the United Nations High Commissioner. We are making every effort, talking with the benches of senators to revert the articles of privileged legitimate defense, and not to confuse support for the Carabineros with violation of due process. We believe that there are possibilities, the Government must use all the constitutional tools to reverse this situation, including the presidential veto.
-This project obeys an agenda promoted by the right. Minister Camila Vallejo accused the right wing of politicizing the security crisis and taking advantage of it to attack the government. Do you agree with that view?
-It is functional to a discourse that looks at criminal phenomena only from the point of view of increased penalties and criminal populism. In all places where the penalties are the same or much higher than in Chile, organized crime only ends with much more comprehensive social regulation, ranging from the approval of children’s rights to the recovery of public spaces, and the social reinsertion of those who have committed crimes and who today are sheltered in jails. It is a staging that aims to make invisible the social problems that occur –from crime–, against which today we need to raise proposals, from the regulation of drugs to the lifting of bank secrecy.
-Do you rule out that your rejection of privileged legitimate defense is based merely on ideological arguments? Are there concrete examples to demonstrate that this proposal encourages the “easy trigger”, as you propose?
-This issue has been discussed in many international instances, there are standards to protect human dignity and also protect the trajectory of the Rule of Law, seeking to regulate the abuse of the State’s monopoly of force. So, to say that by occupying the monopoly of force, problems that are deeper and more multifactorial are solved, is to sell smoke to the citizenry.. This has happened in countries like Colombia, where even the military police have been overwhelmed, or in the United States, where punitiveism has gotten out of control. In fact, this same week President Biden had to go to a school to lament a shooting against girls, boys and adolescents. It seems to me that it is a concern that should be in permanent battle against easy solutions and shortcuts, which serve electorally, but destroy societies in the long run.
-And, in your opinion, is security a political-ideological issue?
-I believe that security is a social problem whose solutions communicate anthropological readings that are framed within the world of ideas that divide political positions into left and right. Although today citizens do not identify with either the left or the right, there is a conservative reflection in the proposals that only with a stick they try to correct situations of abandonment of the State. Because a stronger and more present State, with public policies deployed to promote rights or cover basic services, in the long run builds community cohesion and protection from violence through a social cushion, which today Chile in a neoliberal model does not have. And there are substantive political differences that we must be able to address with transversal agreements, without shortcuts, with a sense of urgency, but with a long-term view.
-And as a result of that, is it possible to reach a common point in terms of security within the ruling party? How do you think it is possible to manage the differences?
-Yes, I believe that in 90% of the things we agree, in promoting prevention and providing more resources to the police –as it was in the Budget Law–; to improve administrative and judicial procedures for the purposes of applying the rules; to safeguard the work of the Gendarmerie. There are many points in common, we must build cross-cutting spaces for conversation and push an agenda that looks at urgent problems, but also in the medium and long term.
-In another matter, what did you think of the summons to testify by prosecutor Ximena Chong, for former President Piñera and some of his ministers? What kind of sign do you see there?
-The Public Ministry has all the powers to collect information in investigative procedures, in order to enforce the law. We believe that, if there are authorities that must testify in the Courts or before the Prosecutor’s Office, no one has any privilege to remain silent or omit to comply with the Rule of Law. I think it’s very good that Prosecutor Chong takes the political world and puts it at the service of judicial proceedings, as it should be in any democratic republic.
-Lastly, and in view of this security agenda, aren’t you concerned as an official party about the possibility that the constituent process goes to the background? How do they observe it from the Broad Front?
-Naturally, if society enters into a spiral of fear, it becomes immobilized and does not prepare for transformations. For this reason, the constituent process has to offer certainties, pursuing profound and structural changes, but with stability. And that is going to be a challenge that is not given, but that we must go to dispute it so that the problems of violence in society can be solved in an integral way, with a Social and Democratic State of Law, that addresses in depth the solutions that citizens require today. And, at the same time, we hope to make progress in immediate legislation, with several projects, for example, from the socialist bench, such as the one that points to procedural modifications to make the work of the Public Ministry more intelligent. We also have to work on all these elements in parallel.
