He says he was relieved when Evelyn Matthei called him to tell him that the candidate for mayor of Santiago would be Mario Desbordes (RN) and not him.
Sebastián Sichel was about to formalize his candidacy, but the decision of Renovación Nacional left him without the opportunity – and he says without the desire – to compete with Irací Hassler (PC) in one of the most important communes in the municipal election of this year.
There are many theses about why they did not support the former presidential candidate, but there are two that underlie them. The first, that there is a base distrust since the previous presidential election. And the second, that finally Sebastián Sichel is seen as an outsider, as someone who does not belong to the sector either politically or culturally.
Did they lower it or did it get lowered?
Let’s start in reverse. I am very calm about not being a candidate. They asked me to make my name available and then they told me that the parties had defined a different name. So, the point is not whether they dropped me or I got off. It’s just that I was never a candidate.
But I was about…
The thing is that to be a candidate you would have to have been nominated by a political party and, finally, Chile Vamos named a candidate called Mario Desbordes, which makes me very happy.
Beyond that, what do you think that decision reveals? You have the experience of having been the presidential standard bearer of that sector. Will it be distrust, will it be resistance?
I believe that Chile Vamos has a difficulty with the independents and does not know how to resolve it. It happened to Marcela Cubillos in Las Condes, it happened to me when I won a primary as an independent. So, the underlying problem is that Chile Vamos is a group of parties rather than a political coalition. Therefore, independents like me throw off the balance of their parties, which, naturally, fight to have those quotas for their members.
So it’s not a personal matter?
I don’t believe it. More than a clash with me, I would say that in Chile Vamos they have a bad way of being a coalition and that prevents them from inviting people who are not members of their parties.
Perhaps figures like you complicate them, because at the front there are parties like Republicans or the Christian Social that condition…?
I feel very comfortable in the world of Chile Vamos. I have no problems with them. A problem only arises when someone who does not come from their parties wants to run for office. And a second difficulty, which is your question, is what happens to those worlds that are not from Chile Vamos, but are putting pressure, such as Republicans and the Social Christian Party…
And what happens?
There is a certain pressure from groups that are more to the right of the culture of Chile Vamos. They are sectors that ask to be like them, breathe like them, dress like them and eat like them. That doesn’t seem legitimate to me. If the condition is that everyone is equal, you will hardly be able to build majorities and be a government.
How is that tension translated?
It is an implicit pressure imposed by certain forces further to the right, even more right-wing than the Republicans, and which has caused Chile Vamos to become confused.
Are you confused about what?
What your agenda should be. And this is directly related to the spirit of what Sebastián Piñera promoted: a democratic and modern center-right. That is the challenge of Chile Vamos.
With everything that happened in the last presidential election and how upset you were, why did you think about running again as a candidate on the right?
First, because I trust the leadership of Evelyn Matthei. She called me and I am convinced that she can make the turn that Piñera did in her minute. That’s why I agreed, but if it had been someone else, the answer would have been no. My only condition was to be a candidate if the parties supported me. For me it was a minimum requirement after previous experience. But, in the end, the parties did not support me and it is legitimate.
Many thought that because of your previous experience you would never again venture into a right-wing candidacy.
He may be stubborn, but he may also be persistent. We are living in a world that is like a river with two banks. One option is to go alone in your little boat, which is what some downtown people do. And the other alternative is to try to build large majorities. That’s my option.
Even if it’s not part of that world?
I feel very close to the postulates of the center-right and I care about building majorities. Politics is full of individual projects and the only thing they have contributed is to the left continuing to win. That was José Antonio Kast’s deepest mistake at the time.
Is there an intention in Chile Vamos to move towards the center?
That is what I hope: that the axis is the political center. Because what I am not willing to do is be on the center-right trying to look like the right. That would be an identity coalition and, therefore, it would be a disaster. It does not serve to be an alternative government and probably does not serve to give governability to the country either.
There is another point that may not be so political, and that is that you do not belong to that world…
I agree with the point one hundred percent.
Maybe that’s why he will always be seen as an “outsider”? Why insist?
Someone said that politics is without crying. I think it’s with crying. Indeed, one has personal pain, but one also believes in rational political projects. I want to convince the right that if they continue talking about “my sector” they will continue to be 40 percent of the electorate. If they do not expand their cultural networks, they will not be a government. That is why I insist on highlighting the legacy of Sebastián Piñera. I know how resisted it was on the right. We talked about it. In fact, my first conversation after the defeat was with him. And he told me basically the same thing: “Do you think they resisted it? Let me tell you my story.” There he told me all the episodes he experienced.
He was also a little stubborn.
Yes, and for me it is an example. With that persistence he managed to be President twice and crossed the possible boundaries. From talking about passive accomplices to being the first to advance equal marriage in Chile. Look what a center-right government that had a leader like Piñera achieved! I hope the same.
What thing?
I want to push the frontier of the possible. I hope to break that paradigm of those who talk about “my sector”, “my culture”. I believe in a liberal center-right in Chile. But, furthermore, populism is such a big threat that it is worth maintaining this persistence. Without the support of a majority, the populists win. So, I know that many times putting up a fight means being spat on, being told that you are not one of us, that you are not so right-wing. But, precisely, that is the fun. Open space for difference.
Juan José Santa Cruz, very close to you, said that Chile Vamos finds it very natural to reach an agreement with the extreme right. Is that what was set up here?
Rather, I believe that Chile Vamos has a reverential fear of bullying, of the funa of the extreme right, but it must be faced.
And today, which is the extreme right?
I think the Republicans have become a more institutionalized party. Therefore, we must think about building bridges to build majorities. The case of Rojo Edwards, by Johannes Kaiser, is different. They are in an identity logic.
Can Evelyn Matthei do the extension on the right?
I trust so. And in the conversations we’ve had, she’s available to broaden the support base of the traditional right. Furthermore, she has had the courage to mark the differences with the more far-right world and incorporate centrist sectors such as Democrats and Yellows. She has shown that she is willing to run the border.
What would you say is the main threat that Matthei has? José Antonio Kast?
I think their main threat is that Chile Vamos does not understand that they have to speak to those other worlds that are not willing to vote for an identity-based right. That speech may work in Las Condes, but not in La Pintana.
But Republicans, for example, did quite well in the popular sectors…
In the popular sectors, but not in the middle sectors. Today we have a security crisis that is a priority, but the right has to have a story that goes a little further.
Opening to where?
For example, I want my children and my wife to feel identified with what I defend. My wife cares about equal pay, her reproductive rights, and that this society stops being sexist. I want her to vote for us and not just for security issues. The right has to have a story that is not only about order and security. That’s the since.
It is said that there is a certain self-complacency on the right, as if they felt that they had already won the next election. Do you notice that weather?
Yes. There is a clumsy triumphalism. And that is a big sin, because instead of looking for the best candidates, they are prioritizing the quota in one sector or another. The problem is that these elbows are being given not to beat a bad government, or a bad administration of a municipality… That is the main clumsiness that can lead us to disaster.
The winning spirit?
Clear. Not understanding that there is nothing gained here. A bad government does not make a good opposition. Leadership, unity, program, awareness of where you want to go are required here. And I see that those points are weak. In fact, I have come across private conversations in which they tell you: Hey, this is won!
The case of the municipality of Santiago?
That’s an example. And I say: sorry, how is it going to be won if in front there is a government with 30% approval and an Irasí Hassler who has almost 40% approval in the commune of Santiago? There is nothing gained. That is why we must support Mario Desbordes with everything. There is a difficulty in winning that municipality. You have to be careful with pride. The case of Spain, which everyone is watching, is an example of that. The center-right has to grow to new worlds.
What is the risk?
If he doesn’t do it, young people will continue voting for Gabriel Boric, women will continue voting for the left. We already saw this. When José Antonio Kast, from the chemically pure right, was chosen, Boric obtained the highest vote that a President has received since the return to democracy. This is the crossroads of the right: either it has a majority vocation and builds a project that provides governability, or it can remain stuck in its identity.
Do you think the right is a prisoner of that identity agenda?
I think she is a prisoner of the centrifugal forces that compete for who is more right-wing, as if that were a merit, a credential. When they say: But Sichel is not right-wing! Obviously not. I am center-right. That is the frontier that must be crossed.
And why do you think you are going to cross that border?
It’s not that I want to run it, but I’m not going to give up the possibility of being part of a project that represents the ideas in which I believe. My cultural heritage is in the liberal world. Why would I give up being there? The worrying thing is that the project of a Milei-style identity right is going to be a failure in Chile. I assure you that.
