Gonzalo Winter (36) is one of the deputies closest to President Gabriel Boric. Their friendship was forged when, as law students, Winter was part of the left-wing collective Flush, a platform that helped elect Boric as president of the Student Federation of the University of Chile (Fech). Just like the current president, Winter wandered through two groups of the Broad Front (FA): the Autonomous Left (IA) and later the Social Convergence (CS). In 2013, he once again showed his loyalty to Boric when he went to live in Punta Arenas to support him in the territorial work of his first campaign in the area.
A deputy representing the 10th district of the Metropolitan Region, Winter ran for re-appointment in the November 2021 parliamentary elections and achieved the third national majority, after Karol Cariola (PC) and Pamela Jiles. Later he joined the command of the second round of the presidential campaign of Gabriel Boric and, after his triumph, he took over as head of the bench of the deputies of the Broad Front, although some point out that his main job in Congress is to be a spokesman for the Boric government before parliamentarians. In this interview, Winter makes a mea culpa regarding the fact that the idea of legislating the tax reform in the Chamber did not prosper and points to the responsibility that Pamela Giles, Amarillos and the Democratic party had in the failure of the first process.
-What happened? Were the government’s calculations wrong regarding the number of votes they had?
-The rejection of the reform was not in the government’s plans and the result obtained does not correspond to the dialogues that had been held with parliamentarians. I think that a self-criticism on the part of the ruling party is appropriate about the fact that one should never be surprised by a vote. However, each one has to take over his vote. Those who did not vote decided to hide their position from the people, failing, in my opinion, their parliamentary duties. If one reviews the reaction of congressman Calisto (ex-DC), it is hard to understand that before all this he said that the tax reform seemed like a positive reform and then he ended up deciding to harm the vast majority of Chileans to play a trick on the Government.
-What are the votes that surprised you the most?
-I was very surprised that Viviana Delgado and Mónica Arce (both from the Green Ecologist Party) did not vote and I was also surprised that the Democratic bench (ex-DC) did not vote in favor. I was surprised by the public position they take saying that they understand the need for a new tax pact in Chile, that they understand the need for redistribution and to raise the Universal Guaranteed Pension (PGU). If that was true, the Democratic caucus could have asked for a separate vote on everything they didn’t like or have presented indications, request a separate vote, but none of that happened in the Finance Committee.
-Yellows and Democrats did not support the reform.
-Their behavior in voting does not correspond to what they have enunciated as a political sector and which is related to the need to make “responsible changes” and a certain path to social justice. In a country with the level of inequality that Chile has, where an unborn person in Providencia has an average life of 18 years more than a person born in Pudahuel, opposing the idea of legislating a tax reform is an extremely radical and ideological.
–What do you think is the underlying reason for not having supported the idea of legislating?
I think there are three paths here. Pamela Jiles’s is to deprive Chileans of social assistance to appear lifting the sixth retirement as the only possible aid, an absolutely absurd plan, because the tax reform did not generate inflation and helped those who need it most. The sixth withdrawal of AFP funds benefits only people with pension funds and increases prices (inflation) for everyone. Pamela Jiles’ strategy is to deprive Chileans of social benefits so that, given the extreme need that she herself causes with her vote, only the sixth withdrawal appears as a solution.
-What is the role of Yellows and Democrats in this process?
-Democrats and Yellows decided to deprive Chileans of greater social justice with the sole intention of harming the Government. It seems to me completely legitimate that they are against the Government, but to oppose reducing evasion and avoidance, to oppose that people who have a pension of 200 thousand pesos can have a more dignified pension, seems to me to be ethically unacceptable pettiness.
But why would they? What would they look for?
-I think they evaluated that, as the Government was rising in the polls, it was necessary to hinder its management to prevent it from continuing to improve its popularity. Ximena Rincón’s problem is that if the government rises in the polls, she is tied to an extremely radical and anti-government position, therefore, she probably calculates that when the government does well, she is in trouble.
-And how do you see the panorama of the “rights”?
-The right in Chile has not believed in social rights for 200 years. The Public School exists in Chile despite the right, democracy exists despite the right, labor rights exist despite the right, and today there is no increase in the PGU because the right did not want to. After this, it became clear that the right wing is there to defend the richest people, which are basically groups like Corpesca, which financed Jacqueline van Rysselberghe and Jaime Orpis, or like SQM, which financed Pablo Longueira, or the Penta group, that financed the entire UDI. I think they voted against it to defend those who had to pay more taxes.
-Would you agree that the Government insists in the Senate with the tax reform?
-That is something that the Government has to evaluate, both the Ministry of Finance and the General Secretariat of the Presidency (Segpres), because that requires the support of 2/3 of the Senate and, probably, that would mean making another reform. As a parliamentarian, I am willing to talk and reach agreements with all the benches, provided that this produces benefits for the Chileans. But it is evident that this would mean distorting the reform, but as a government we cannot throw away the sponge.
-Do not then rule out insisting on the Senate?
– From the ruling party we have the responsibility to seek the best for the country, and if that means talking with the UDI, we will do it. The most important thing is to summon the people of Chile to debate and discuss these issues. If the Government manages to negotiate only with the UDI, it will be very difficult to obtain results that will benefit the people, but if, on the other hand, the vast majority of citizens are informed and mobilized on these issues, the conversation can be more fruitful.
