In the midst of the pro-government tension, due to the decision of the PPD and the Radical Party (PR) to contest the election of constitutional councilors with two lists, eventually allying themselves with the DC, some voices of Democratic Socialism questioned this logic of division of alliances of Government, all this in the face of speculation about the decision that the PS and the Liberal Party (PL) will make, and the failed attempt by Approve Dignity to promote a unitary list for the elections on May 7.
In this regard, one of the Democratic Socialism deputies who signed a letter a few days ago, together with several other pro-government parliamentarians, raising the urgency that both government coalitions compete on a single list, the deputy Juan Santana (PS), it is clear in prosecuting the intention of those who, in their sector, bet on separate lists. “There are those like former senator Girardi who have been in charge in recent weeks of creating friendly fire between the official parties, seeking to create real minefields so that the government coalitions finally end up fragmenting,” Santana said.
For the socialist deputy “there would be no reason” why Democratic Socialism and Approve Dignity should be separated “in an instance as important as this”, ensuring that as the electoral system of these elections is designed – similar to the binomial system -, “Obviously this fracture of the center left is going to contribute to the victory or to the best electoral performance of the right.”
For his part, the parliamentarian, who is a member of the Labor Committee of the Chamber of Deputies and Deputies, referred to the scope of the pension reform that is currently being processed in Congress, whose idea of legislating would be voted on on Wednesday, January 25. In addition, Santana valued the progress in the Senate of the project that reduces the working day from 45 to 40 hours a week, which, in his opinion, seeks to dignify the working conditions of workers.
-What do you think about the decision of the parties of your coalition – Democratic Socialism -, such as the PPD and the Radical Party (PR) to promote two lists for the election of constitutional councillors? Does this harm the unity of government alliances?
-We are aware of the complex moment that the country is going through, and that precisely demands from us greater cohesion and greater unity to be able to carry out those reforms that are fundamental for the country, being the pension reform one of them and the agreement on safety matter. I think that it is mainly us, the government parties, who have to support it and contribute to expanding its support base, both at the security table and in economic matters. We believe that unity is essential in the political forces of the Government, to be able to materialize the commitments that were acquired in these matters, but it is also important in such a fundamental aspect as the elaboration of a new Constitution. There are those like former senator Girardi, who in recent weeks have been in charge of creating friendly fire between the government parties, seeking to create real minefields so that the government coalitions finally end up fragmenting.
-How to avoid said pro-government atomization, to which you refer? Is it possible to push for unity, since voices continue to emerge that appeal to a rearticulation of the sectors of the center, reviving the extinct Concertación?
-We believe that there are more aspects and stories that unite us than those that distance us. We were together in 1988 to defeat Pinochet, we have been together in each of the reforms to be able to eliminate or modify the authoritarian enclaves that remained from the 1980 Constitution, we were together for the instance of the constitutional agreement of November 15 that enabled the first constituent process, and we have been together in the historical moments where our democracy has been in question in our country. There would be no reason why we should separate in an instance as important as this. Complex and divisive moments are those where political parties must have a greater degree of cohesion and a greater degree of loyalty to the Government.
-What do you think of the idea that Democratic Socialism would try to influence a “change of speech” in the Government, looking for new spaces of power in La Moneda? Is, in your opinion, the election of constitutional councilors a propitious moment to expose their internal differences?
-In my opinion, there is a thesis that lacks any foundation and a completely wrong idea, which is that if President Boric’s government goes badly, only the Approve Dignity parties will be weakened, and I believe that those who think that Within Democratic Socialism, they do not understand the incalculable consequences that the government would have to do badly. If the government of President Boric is doing badly, all the parties are doing badly and all the parties that are part of his alliance are weakened, including the Socialist Party, the PPD, the Humanist Party (PH) and the Radical Party (PR ), because we are part of this project. I believe that the statements that we have heard in recent weeks reveal a revengeful spirit that is basically committed to two lists, an issue that has no justification for an election like this, which is very similar to the election with the binomial system, where in most regions elect two or three councillors, except for the RM and the Region of Valparaíso. In the rest of the regions, if we are separated, obviously this fracture of the center left will contribute to the victory or better electoral performance of the right.
-In another matter, what is the degree of progress of the pension reform? How has your discussion been in the Chamber’s Work Committee and how willing are you, as the ruling party, to introduce changes to the project that is currently being processed in Congress?
-The vote that would take place next week is the general vote on the project, the idea of legislating. After that, we should start voting article by article. The truth is that I am available, together with the PS bench, to be able to introduce observations or modifications that contribute and that are in the central line of what this pension reform is (…) But I believe that the reform is a initiative that already brings with it aspects that were highly promoted by the opposition. In fact, if one checks, for example, with regard to the individual savings of each worker, this reform is going to give the possibility – an issue that does not exist today – to people to be able to choose which organization, whether a public or a private one, he will be the one who manages his individual savings. And there, of course, we made progress in something that was pointed out a lot in the constitutional debate, which was related to each person’s freedom to choose.
And, on the other hand, there have been absolute certainties that the individual savings of each worker will continue to be the property of each worker, but that it will also be inheritable. In other words, this reform mixes aspects that were promoted by the right in our country, in recent times, but on the other hand, it introduces elements that for our center-left world are essential to improve pensions. And one of them, of course, is solidarity, understanding that in order to improve the pensions of current retirees, those who will no longer have the possibility of contributing, it is necessary for there to be intergenerational solidarity, as the minister has called it. , and for that, of course, the creation of social security, with this 6% additional savings, is essential.
-Finally, and in relation to the project that reduces the working day from 45 to 40 hours a week, which is advancing in the Senate, what do you think of how the project is turning out?
-We are happy that the Senate has finally made progress on this initiative, and this is expressed in the modification of Article 22, which will allow us to go from 45 to 40 hours, and other advances that have been introduced in the Upper House , such as the fact that electronic control has been made official in the attendance of each worker, the fact that overtime can be compensated with up to five new holidays, allowing the possibility of working in this 4 x 3 system, especially in the sector mining, and a series of aspects, such as exceptional days, understanding that a regulation will be created for that. We believe that all these aspects will contribute to the fact that this decision by the Government and Congress to reduce working hours is a good decision, and that it goes along the lines of dignifying the working conditions of workers.
