For days now, a debate has been going through Chile that seeks to caricature those currents that raise alternative positions to traditional politics, from the field of social transformation.
These new actors are grouped and questioned, classifying them based on the term “Woke” (“I woke up” in English). From this exercise, which declares claims of objectivity, arguments are deployed that label them as partial, tribal or identity-based, in this way they seek to delegitimize the struggles that arose from the slogan “Chile woke up” and, in the process, try to bury the Revolt.
This strategy of the traditional political sectors aims to hit the emerging movements to stop their advance and silence them. These would represent a threat to what the ruling political class, of the transition process, understands as its legacy.
In its defense, it invites us to continue with an attitude of anesthesia and conformity in the face of injustice and impunity, to assume as normality what becomes unacceptable to us.
It is the proposal of the policy of the extent possible, which, in return for progress in certain areas, accumulated and accumulated unrest in many others, achieving a precarious exclusionary stability.
Today, after The Revolt and two failed constitutional processes, which had opposite political signs, the unresolved causes of the cry that announced the awakening of citizens are once again revealed.
The dark places of abuse and corruption return before our stunned eyes, exploding in the center of the political class, through denunciations of practices that have left a more weakened social and political order.
This political class knows well, but will never publicly assume, that its power is not based only on democracy and votes, but on participating in an implicit pact of the elite regarding letting those at the top do their thing and demanding a strong hand to those below.
This plot includes a former president (who they wanted to canonize) and some high-ranking officials of the police, the army, the Internal Revenue Service, mayors, among others; and of course, to the network of elite businessmen and lobbyists, who traffic influences and classified information, who agree to commit crimes and pay bribes in money and fees.
In this scenario, this emerging policy is accused of defending particular interests and its emphasis on demanding reparation for those who have experienced injustice is questioned, recriminating that in this way the idea of a universal vocation for the progress of humanity would be betrayed.
Well, the opposite happens, by questioning the limits of what is inherited and its injustices, we seek to expand the analysis, include new variables; those that other conceptual, political and ideological frameworks did not include, which is why they did not go further. Promoting transformations at different scales is becoming aware of the past, the present and promoting a future. This is a task that we cannot ignore to move towards a more just and democratic society.
The challenge, for those of us who want to make a transformative policy, is to read the criticism that resists us, that accuses us of betraying some immutable heritage and confront this debate; The challenge is to dialogue and articulate the struggles that emerge to break the limits and propose to politically constitute the capacity to lead what is to come, which without a doubt, will be a totality, a universality, more just and democratic if the new movements and their demands They make way for the construction of a new policy.
