Senator Matías Walker, a former Christian Democrat and today part of the Democratic Party – a collective currently in formation – explains in this interview the reasons they had with Senator Ximena Rincón for joining the Evópoli Committee in the Senate. He argues that the change is only for administrative reasons, that it is not a change of political address and that he intends to continue voting in favor of initiatives promoted by La Moneda.
-What was the reason for Ximena Rincón and you to leave the Christian Democratic Committee and enter the Evópoli Committee of the Senate, in the opposition?
-We always proposed to the Christian Democracy to keep us in the same committee, but Yasna Provoste said, last week, that we could not because we had resigned from the DC and we did not share its principles. A few days later, Provoste offered Fabiola Campillai and Karim Bianchi to join the DC Committee to continue with five senators, which is a contradiction, because, with all the love and respect that I have for Senator Campillai, she as a senator He has voted numerous times against critical infrastructure projects, rejected all the renewals of the State of Exception and even, in a moment of obfuscation, called “to burn everything” in some statements. Karim Bianchi was an active promoter of the fifth retreat. I don’t think DC shares these principles.
-You argued that within the DC Committee the agreement signed in March 2022 was not fulfilled. What was that agreement?
-The agreement to maintain the places that we would occupy in the commissions, notwithstanding the differences that we had had. At the committee meeting held last week, the only one who expressed her discrepancy with this agreement was Senator Yasna Provoste, who indicated that she wanted to cede the vacant seats in the commissions to senators Karim Bianchi and Fabiola Campillai. We consider that this was not appropriate, since the agreement of those who would head the commissions was with first and last name, that is how the secretary of the Senate understood it, that is how the heads of all the other committees have understood it.
-And what did the other two members of the DC Committee, senators Iván Flores and Francisco Huenchumilla, think about it?
-Huenchumilla and Flores were always in favor of seeking agreements with us, our output is related to Provoste. Senator Provoste has a very powerful voice within that committee, but she has been very much alone in this position. Everyone understood that the agreements had to be respected.
-Did you then decide to leave the DC Committee because of the position of Yasna Provoste?
-Because it was an absolutely arbitrary decision by Yasna Provoste that affected governance and implied re-discussing all the agreements that were with names and surnames. It is in this context that we agreed with Evópoli to administratively join his committee. They are three senators and with Ximena Rincón we are two, so we would complete the five and that allows us to put ourselves in a position to enforce the agreements.
Why is this agreement “administrative”?
-Because we want the agreements previously signed in the integration of the different commissions to be respected and Evópoli wanted exactly the same. This is an administrative agreement with Evópoli, it is not a political agreement. We simply want the agreements to be respected, by virtue of which, among other things, Evópoli has an agreed vice-presidency of the Senate for the last term. We are not going to share an office with Evópoli, it is just a vehicle to enforce last year’s agreement.
-Don’t you consider it reasonable that the DC Committee wanted to separate you after you left the DC?
-We do not formally belong to the DC Committee since last year. From that moment we were up in the air, and we didn’t care much, because the truth is that having an office or a secretary was not a matter of life or death and we were very comfortable with our independence. What happens is that, when they tried to ignore our positions in the commissions, we decided to look for administrative approaches with other committees.
-Which other committees did you discuss the possibility of joining?
-At one point we raised it with the Committee of the Socialist Party (PS). We would have been very comfortable in an agreement with the PS. There were informal conversations, we never formalized it.
-Could they have gone to the Committee of the Party for Democracy (PPD)?
-Perfectly we could have had an administrative agreement with the bench of the PS or the PPD. There were informal talks with both parties, which ultimately did not prosper. And to be frank, the only committee that offered to welcome us administratively was the Evópoli Committee, and we are very grateful, because they did not ask us for anything in return. Evópoli sympathized with us in this claim that the commission integration agreements be fulfilled.
–Evópoli did not ask for anything in return?
-No, and I keep intact the positions that I had and expressed when I was in charge of the Constitution Commission. I spoke with the Minister of the Environment, Maisa Rojas, who somehow expressed her expectation that we could work very well, and I also spoke with the Minister of Labor, Jeannette Jara, about the 40-hour project and the Pension Reform, among other things. flagship projects. What we seek is to replicate the agreements we reached in the Constitution Commission, for example on constitutional matters, the children’s agenda, the security agenda, as well as constitutional matters. For example, the Government knows that I am not going to support the project for the sixth retreat, and the DC Committee wanted to place Karim Bianchi, who is the author of the project for the fifth retreat, on the Labor Commission.
– Is there still “affinity” between you and the ruling party?
-I think that the Government values the institutional role that we have played to give governability to the country. By way of example, I have voted in favor of all the Government bills, and it is very probable that from the Executive there is a positive assessment of the work that we have done from the Constitution commission, which could be replicated in other commissions. I have never felt like an opposition senator, we are not in the Government, but we are willing to collaborate to push the legislative agenda forward.
-Understanding that you left the DC due to internal problems rather than an ideological decision, where are you now?
-We are leaving the DC mainly because of the discrepancy we had with the official line of the DC that opted for Approval, since in our opinion the correct position was that of Rejection and then lead an agreement for a new Constitution that would unite to all Chileans, just as we did. All this in the conviction that our traditional Christian Democrat electorate was for the Rejection, which is what happened.
-What happens with Provoste inside the DC? What about his role in the committee and in the party?
-She has a very important role of influence in the party, and particularly in the Supreme Court of the community, which was the body that expelled me and Senator Rincón when we were for the Rejection. Former President Frei was also for the Rejection, but he was not expelled. Senator Provoste has significant influence in the DC Committee and unfortunately acts with a lot of hate. I don’t understand her, we campaigned together, we all loyally support her in her presidential campaign. I do not understand this hatefulness and this permanent desire of Yasna Provoste for wanting to harm us.
– Is there no counterweight to Yasna Provoste in the DC?
-No, there is no counterweight.
-And do you feel closer ideologically to Democratic Socialism or Chile Vamos?
-We have identified ourselves as a party of the center, which seeks the common good, which has no complexes in legislating on citizen security, in working with SMEs, or in talking about economic growth. We feel tributary to the 30 best years in the history of Chile, which were the center-left governments (Concertación and Nueva Mayoría). In ideological terms, I feel closer to Democratic Socialism than to Chile Vamos.
-You say you have your convictions intact, what are those convictions?
-We are a center party, which looks to the future, which obviously identifies with the center-left for the Rejection, with Ximena Rincón, Carlos Maldonado, Jorge Tarud, Gabriel Alemparte or Camila Avilés. Where we also coordinate with Amarillos and “Una que nos una” by Felipe Harboe, Andrés Velasco, Javiera Parada, among several other people with whom we feel very comfortable. I hope that between now and next May, we in Democrats like Yellows can form political parties, at least in contiguous regions in order to form a political coalition tomorrow and make future electoral pacts.
-But would you do it together with them or each one independently?
-Our claim is to be two different parties. We probably have different sensibilities, different histories, and I hope that we can both establish ourselves as parties and form a coalition of the center. And not only with Amarillos, hopefully “Una que nos una” by Javiera Parada and others can join in.
-What is the difference between Democrats and Yellows for Chile?
-We are first cousins. They were born as a movement, they had a structure throughout the country, we perhaps have greater representation in Congress, and that sets us apart. We have different personalities and the same claim to form a coalition of the center, which would come to fill a void.
-And how are you different from Evopoli?
-With Evópoli, certainly there are differences. Me and Ximena Rincón voted for President Gabriel Boric, and Evópoli voted for José Antonio Kast. It is obvious that we have differences with them and for that we appreciate the fair play that they had when making this administrative agreement so that we could adequately carry out our legislative work without asking for anything in return.
