-Now that the days have passed, what is your conclusion about what happened in the Senate and that ended with the UDI and Evópoli supporting the president of the PS, and not the candidate of your RN partners, in this case you?
-I have not changed much the impression. There was a very serious fact that it is not a question of a power dispute, but a very great disloyalty of Udi and Evópoli that agreed with the opposition a presidency that the right could have had for four years. Until today in RN we still do not understand why if the right as a conglomerate had the votes to govern, two parties of the bloc chose to agree with the government sectors and distribute the years of regency. In our opinion, having presided over the Senate was very important because in some way it balances the power that the government parties have today in the Chamber of Deputies, the Constitutional Convention and the Executive itself. A country needs different views and today, as the powers were structured, our sector does not have the capacity to influence any of the democratically elected places of power.
-Has there been any kind of rapprochement with your peers from Chile Vamos?
-I can answer for myself and the truth is that we have been strengthened as a party by evaluating everything that happened in the Senate. The signal that our now former partners gave was very strong for us because it made us rethink our presence in the bloc and also what our objective is. In my case, I am in the idea of social progress that allows promoting changes that allow making Chile a fairer country, more empathetic with what has happened after the outbreak of 2019.
-The argument that your partners (or former partners) gave was that in this first year it was more important to have the PS at the head, thinking about how to defend and influence the CC in the protection of the Senate. Does that answer make sense to you?
-It doesn’t make any sense to me. They say they want to defend the Senate, but by agreeing with the ruling party they did irreparable damage to Chile and above all to the convention. Just when the left is sweeping the right in the constitutional process, it was time to give a clear signal of strength and unity and convey the idea that we in the Senate were vigilant and strong in confronting the re-founding ideas of some groups. But the UDI and Evópoli thought more about the presidencies of some of their own and forgot what happens in the constituent process. Later they go out to speak in the press that the convention and the constitutional process are a mess, but when they had to show their displeasure with actions, they took the path of dividing our sector even more.
-Other reasons that have been heard is that his name never generated broad consensus in the sector, and that from the RN board they rushed into the discussion
-Another fallacy. Indeed, when I realized that my name was not pleasant, I withdrew my candidacy. And the candidate was not me, it was Francisco Chahuán.
-How much do you think it weighed having abstained from the constitutional accusation against former President Sebastián Piñera, and that it was related to the eventual non-payment of taxes and conflict of interest in the sale of his part of the Dominga mining property?
-Well I was told many times, so it must be true. I am super calm in any case because I abstained in conscience and after making a thorough study of the facts and not like the majority who voted against by order of La Moneda. I do not regret abstaining because there was no concrete evidence to accuse him, but there were also many gray areas that left great doubts about the behavior of the former President. I think that was important, in fact I think that not reaching the presidency of the Senate was largely an operation of La Moneda through the political operator and designated senator Claudio Alvarado.-
– Is there any self-criticism on your part or from RN for having been left out of the last instance of the negotiation?, some substantive reason should exist.
-In other words, having been too trusting and believing until the last moment that we were going to reach an agreement. That was a great sin, although in our favor we can say that we would never have thought that the UDI and Evópoli would negotiate from below with the ruling party. We also thought that they were really worried about the country, but in reality with the facts they showed that they were only thinking about securing the presidencies of Coloma and Kast for the second and fourth years.
-It is difficult to remember a similar situation, where the party with the greatest representation of elected positions is left out of such a preponderant agreement.
-I don’t know of any, but it is the logic of some in my sector that they enforce the codes only when it suits them. While the UDI was in the majority, they always had priority in the commissions, at the table, etc. And RN always respected that concept. But now, as the majority was RN, that criterion did not apply. From one day to the next, what was law became a dead letter. The UDI likes unity only when the conditions they impose are met. If someone opposes that, there is simply no such clear unity.
-What did RN do wrong?
-More than doing wrong, I think we should define an idea of a country that reads what is happening in Chilean society. Rn has to understand that it must represent people and not respond to large economic interests. If we manage to understand that, I think this process will have been positive. It is necessary to be a right more associated to the citizen interests than to the business ones. A party that truly empathizes with post-explosion Chile cannot continue to think only of capital and macroeconomic balances. It must also come down to reality and understand that such unequal societies are a boomerang for the same wealthy sectors that will inevitably have to face a country full of social conflict. That is not good for anyone.
-What does the state of reflection in which your party finds itself really mean?
-I’m not thinking. I am convinced that the path is one’s own route. The hardest right that represents the other two parties has made a decision to refuse any change and continue in the trenches. In that scenario, Chite Vamos doesn’t make any sense.
-Have you calibrated the eventual consequences of putting an end to Chile Vamos?
-Politics is also to take risks. I am going to play it inside the party to pave our independence and we will see if there is a floor for that.
-How much of the historical rivalry for who has more ancestry between the RN and the UDI is there in this plot?
-I believe that much. The UDI has always had a behavior of putting its foot on top of others. It already happened with Jaime Guzmán in the 90s when they did an operation with Don Sergio Onofre Jarpa. RN has already reached a limit where he cannot continue to be trampled by his allies. You have to have a little dignity too.
-What can the right contribute, in the state in which it finds itself, to confront or accompany the current government?
-We would have to see which right. Now the UDI and Evópoli are the same thing. Evópoli is a slightly smaller UDI, a bit more cute, boutique, but they have the same stop.
-From the Republican Party they have already made it clear that they are going to be a tough opposition in all aspects, how much of that could cloud or complicate the actions of a more liberal right-wing?
-They are not in sync with the times. The most authoritarian right wing that believes that any change is a TREASON against the country has no place in this new Chile.
– Is there really a right that points to the center and that is not complicated by the daily “taken to the blackboard” that the Republican Party occupies as a strategy?
-I feel part of a progressive right in the social sphere that seeks the prosperity of society as a whole and not just one group. Prosperity for me is the result of Economic Welfare and Social Welfare working together and in balance. Prosperity is more than economic growth and the accumulation of material wealth, and also includes other facets of life such as the insertion of everyone in society without restrictions of origin, provenance or economic capital.
-What is your evaluation of the first week of the Government?
-I’m worried. It is a government that does not manage the agenda and has made too many unforced errors. The thing about Araucanía was a supine improvisation and they have messed up several issues with the priest Berríos and his failed arrival at the Government; the different views on the Mapuche political prisoners, the problem with the prince of Spain, etc.
