The -until now- uncertain collective decision of the Christian Democracy to approve or reject the text of the New Constitution in the exit plebiscite on September 4, has provoked a fratricidal war within it, revealing the underlying problem of the party: the absence of a political project. At this moment, the phalanx is divided, and immersed in a dilemma that is difficult to elucidate: close the doors to constitutional change, following the logic promoted by senators Matías Walker and Ximena Rincón, which would mean taking a definitive step to the right; or opt for the Approval option, under the leadership of Senator Francisco Huenchumilla and the party’s own president, Felipe Delpin, among other figures.
Two weeks ago, its militants decided to advance in ten days the National Board in which the conglomerate will finally take the resolution on its position regarding the constituent process, which will be held next Wednesday, July 6, because the Electoral Service (Servel ) determined that between the 5th and 6th of next month the registration process will be opened for political parties to participate in the campaign for the exit plebiscite that will vote for the new Constitution.
But the controversy escalated this Thursday, when nine former presidents of the community sent a letter addressed to the party’s board of directors, requesting freedom of action for its militants, ruling out the option of issuing a partisan opinion on the new Constitution, supporting a an idea that Senator Rincón herself had expressed some time ago. Among the signatories of the letter were the former President of the Republic Eduardo Frei, in addition to the former helmsmen Carolina Goic, Enrique Krauss, Alejandro Foxley, Ricardo Hormazábal, Fuad Chahín, Juan Carlos Latorre, Ignacio Walker and Andrés Zaldívar.
“Proud of the history of the Christian Democracy, aware of the mistakes made and convinced that our party has much to contribute in the present and future, we come to request that the militants be granted freedom of action,” said the former presidents, generating a quick reaction on the part of the directive chaired by the mayor of La Granja, Felipe Delpin. With a message about unity and temperance, through an open letter, the group of the current president of the DC made a call to “combat fear” and overcome what, in his opinion, is a historical crossroads regarding whether to approve or reject the new Constitution.
In this letter they also urged their militants to get out of the “political irrelevance into which we have fallen in recent years”, where they believe it is crucial to take a position as a conglomerate, where Delpin himself stated a few days ago that “the DC It would do a lot of harm to opt for Rejection.” In that sense, from the Falangist directive they seek to address the “heart of the militancy”, establishing a story that surpasses the factual powers historically associated with the status quo or now linked to the option of Rejection. In this regard, they added that “in this definitive hour, we invite our comrades to imitate the example of our founding fathers, believe in their party before historical reality overtakes us, encourage established internal democracy and challenge the long-standing status quo.”
One of the figures of the phalanx who has dared to make public his position regarding the constitutional process, Senator Francisco Huenchumilla, vehemently rejected the position of the former presidents of the party, raising the hypothesis that “certain sectors of the DC are to reject, and a freedom of action would allow them to spend strained, at the cost of mortgaging forever the little credibility that, I suppose, we may still have left. An unpresentable question in my opinion, because I would be playing the game of the right. Because objectively, a DC liberties decision is a point in favor of Rejection.”
The parliamentarian for the region of La Araucanía assured that “the moment of truth has arrived”, and that the phalanx must lean towards one of the two alternatives. In this sense, he believes that it would be favorable to the debate if each of the former signatory helmsmen were honest about their option and publicly said if they are for Approval or Rejection, which in his opinion would be beneficial for militancy and public opinion.
For his part, the lawyer, former secretary of the party’s Ethics Commission and adviser to former presidential candidate Yasna Provoste, Luis Eduardo Thayer Morel, expressed his surprise and annoyance with the decision of the former helmsmen. “Honestly, I cannot believe how nine former presidents meet to address the board and ask that the political party in which we are a member deny its internal democracy so that it does not issue a partisan opinion in the face of such an essential political act for Chile as approving or reject the new Constitution that proposes a Rule of Law and put an end to neoliberal stateThayer pointed out, adding that the former authorities have “more than anyone else” the moral duty to guide by openly giving their opinion on the exit plebiscite.
The notorious discomfort that reveals irreparable internal fractures
In a chain of emails between militants of the DC, the so-called “comrades” expressed their repudiation and evident discomfort with the letter published by the former presidents of the party, considering the fact as “ethical and politically vomiting disgust.” One of the participants in said electronic dialogue considered it as something “abominable”, demanding “Public trial in the Plaza de la Constitución en masse… for treason against the Homeland and Citizenship: THE PEOPLE”.
Another of the opinions alluded to the fact that “the only thing missing was adding” the former Falangist presidents, Gutenberg Martínez and Soledad Alvear. “Abominable: they surpassed the “Yellows for Chile”! Excelent example of some “Pharisees of the Temple”, and with some totally cynical “mea culpas”… anti-Christians”, sentenced one of the harsh criticisms that caused another of the involved requested that he be excluded from this type of email, on the grounds that “they do not correspond to the democratic fraternity” in which he was formed.
The former Minister of the Interior of Bachelet Belisario Velasco and former Undersecretary of the same portfolio of Aylwin and Frei came out quickly to reject the disqualifications against the former presidents of the party. “The former presidents of the Republic were publicly excluded from the first list of guests for the delivery of the proposed Constitution, having
They were the first citizens of Chile, a Democratic and Unitary Republic. I am concerned about the threatening and aggressive tone among our comrades. Freedom of conscience has been a historical value of Christian Democracy.”
These comments are evidence of a deep internal fracture, in the midst of a complex moment that, according to its own militants, has worsened with the constituent process, causing a polarization between those who support the Approval, and those who have publicly expressed their objections to the proposal for a new Constitution. The decision of the former helmsmen to go against the will of their own party, which has called an internal consultation to jointly resolve their position in the face of the exit plebiscite, has sparked a series of reactions, further stressing the coexistence within a conglomerate that remains in a limbo between the ruling party and the opposition, between Approval and Rejection, and as they recognize from their own directive, between the past and the future.
According to the political analyst of The counter, Germán Silva Cuadra, up to now, the DC has 60% of its professionals for the Rejection, its parliamentarians divided equally, its board supporting the Approval, but afraid to take the step. However, as Silva Cuadra warns, “everything seems to point to the fact that, rather than joining the Rejection, they will end up taking a dangerous and irreversible step to the right. Today the story of the Walker-Rincóns is no different from that of RN, the UDI and even some Republicans. And it seems that the weight of that sector is very strong, or else the silence of the others – except for a played Huenchumilla – is very symbolic.
Everything will be decided next July 6, when despite the call for “free will” by the nine former presidents of the community, the National Board of the phalanx meets to make a decision regarding whether to approve or reject the proposal. of the new Constitution, just two days after the official closing of the constituent process. A resolution that could be decisive in the future of a party that will try to resolve its sources of internal conflict, with positions that seem to be irreconcilable, in the search for a political project that supports its actions.
In this regard, the helmsman of the community, Felipe Delpin, pointed out that it is of “absolute importance to make a clear, definitive decision that tells the country what the position of the DC is.” The mayor of La Granja added that they should not be afraid of the debate, nor of what the party’s bases express democratically, pointing out that “if we do not make a decision, be it Approval or Rejection, we will be in absolute insignificance, we will be a party that disappears from national politics.
