Fresh from Chile Day that took place in Toronto, Canada, and New York, USA, the president of the UDI, Javier Macaya, says that he received the public account of President Gabriel Boric with some surprise. That he expected more about his main reforms – even a clearer signal to the opposition – and that, instead, the President chose to anticipate the start of the municipal electoral campaign. To argue this, he relies on the announcement that stole the headlines: the sending of a project on legal abortion, which was far from the priorities until now recognized by the Executive.
“If the President intends to directly enter the political agenda during the campaign period, the opposition does not have to step on that stick,” says the senator, who insists that it is the government that is called to give in to its positions in the discussion on pensions and the fiscal pact.
What do you keep from the public account?
I think there were two speeches. He started out as a unitary and statesman and ended up speaking to his electorate in a very activist way. Almost anticipating the start of the campaign. In this second axis, the President notifies that he is more interested in the elections, in his benches, in the left, than in carrying out reforms that are really important for Chile. Because one thing is the rhetoric of being concerned about the security agenda, the economy, but that did not have much support regarding how he wanted to carry out the reforms. Especially if you enter into a logic of direct attacks with an issue that has political implications in the opposition, even in the ruling party, such as abortion. Or indirect too, as was the outline that the right was losing democratic credentials with what had happened 50 years after the coup. It is not the tone that one would expect if one wants to achieve agreements. And the doubt that arises is whether there is actually an intention to carry out the reforms.
Did La Moneda enter electoral mode on the right foot?
In the second part of the account, what the President did was directly speak to his toughest electorate and think about the municipal elections. And it’s bad news. Because, from the opposition, there has been a willingness, as demonstrated in the security agenda, to give votes to the government on important matters for Chile.
And what reading do you make of the fact that the reforms have been mentioned without much detail in the public account?
There is a rhetorical issue that the President handles very well, but that does not coincide one millimeter with what his ministers are pushing on the agenda. And it has to do with a statist agenda, a values agenda of the extreme left that arises with the issue of abortion. And that makes it much more difficult to project deals. And obviously it makes it even more necessary for the opposition to raise a clear alternative that confronts and defeats that agenda. Here the worst thing we could do is step on the stick that is put in terms of falling into a division over the value issue, over a project that has been discussed for many years in Congress, which is abortion without causes. The government knows that beyond giving a political speech, in Congress today there are no votes for the opposition and in part of the ruling party I realized that neither is there.
Is the President giving up on reaching agreements?
When you decide that your central issue is abortion, you somehow try to provoke your opponent, and you give up reaching agreements on the issues that really matter. That is dangerous and would be very bad news for Chile. I hope not and I’m going to push in the opposite direction. But I also note that this is not the first time that the left uses abortion to polarize.
Will the issue of abortion have an impact on the conversations about pension reform and the fiscal pact?
When you polarize, that affects everything. And this issue is indeed polarizing, but we are going to remain unchanged in not criticizing the government for doing things different from those that were in its program. It is the vast majority of Chileans who do not believe that unjustified abortion is something that will change their quality of life today. That goes some way to showing how wrong the government’s priorities are. For the opposition, the issues are the security crisis, the economic issue, employment, what is happening in the health sector and we are going to remain firm that this is our agenda and that is where Chileans’ priorities lie. . If the President intends to create a distraction with the issue of abortion, in order to polarize and directly enter the political agenda during the campaign period, the opposition does not have to step on that stick.
Did you expect any clearer signal from the President, both in terms of the pension reform and the fiscal pact?
Yes. What the President has to do is act with pragmatism regarding what works. We expect this in taxes, as we all want revenue to increase. But from the perspective of the formula, what works today and what is sustainable in the long term is not raising taxes, but rather advancing in permitting, reducing public spending, generating the conditions so that the lithium industry can definitely develop. And in pensions, the same: we all want to raise them. But we want to do it accompanied by technical evidence of what works. In this regard, our willingness continues to be to reach agreements to the extent that the government listens to the technical evidence.
Now, as the positions and formulas under debate stand today, is there any possibility of progress?
It is a wrong axis to maintain the discussion regarding the fate of the 6%. The fate of that 6% has two qualities that today are impossible to ignore. A quality, is what the majority of Chileans think, that is, socially and politically it can be a gigantic own goal to deviate from what 70% of Chileans think in this matter, which is ownership of funds. And second, get away from the technical evidence of what works in the world, which is not distribution, which is not the generation of a public, monopolistic entity that plays a role on the part of the State in terms of pensions. There is sufficient technical evidence, not said by Libertad y Desarrollo, but by David Bravo, who was very listened to by President Bachelet in 2008, or Óscar Landerretche, from the Faculty of Economics and Business of the University of Chile, which should allow him the government to do the same thing they did in the security agenda, migrations, in isapres, which is basically changing their mind because it clashes with the reality of what works.
That is to say, it is the government that has to change its position, not you…
Yes, but again, with those two requirements: listening to people and letting yourself be accompanied by the technical evidence of people who know about this subject, not only in Chile, but in the world.
And what is the UDI willing to give up to reach an agreement?
In which we have a pension system with much more competition, with more actors, where there is a commission scheme that is not based on profitability, but on stability… where we have the possibility of increasing pensions via PGU and putting everything into it. the solidarity that is necessary via general taxes without affecting the property rights of Chilean workers over their funds. There are ways to increase the pension, which is the objective sought by all, without affecting the foundations of a system that in the long term will end up being underfunded because the pyramid is going to be reversed and the workforce in the future, given the rates birth rate is going to be lower.
Has there been obstructionism from the right in this discussion? What is Minister Vallejo accusing…
We were accused of obstructionism in the health discussion and we reached unanimous agreement on the short isapres law. We were accused of obstructionism for having left the security table in January of last year, and we passed 23 laws, which is more than what had been passed, statements by Minister Elizalde himself, on security matters since the return to democracy. . The government is not a majority in Congress, and to approve all these laws, which he celebrates as an important advance, he has had the unanimity of the opposition and many times the votes against the ruling party. I believe that whatever obstructionism there has been in the security agenda has had more to do with votes from the extreme left. A little self-criticism is missing.
In everything that has to do with the security agenda, whether due to pragmatism, because the opposition plays a role that is not precisely obstructionist or because the President legitimately changed his mind, results were achieved that were in line with what the opposition was. thought-out. And that is why we do not criticize President Boric for changing his mind. I have the legitimate hope that this can happen in pensions and in the tax issue. Because the objectives are the same, and are shared, regardless of the differences in the mechanism.
Isn’t it better for Evelyn Matthei, the best looking candidate in the polls today, to settle this issue now?
Without a doubt it is much better, but the worst thing would be to settle it with a bad agreement. The worst thing would be to settle it so that the cost ends up being paid by Chilean workers and future generations of Chilean workers and Chilean retirees because it is a system that is not going to be sustainable.
There is disorder in the municipal negotiations on the right and no clear program for the upcoming elections. Is the right proposing a serious proposal for the country? There has been internal criticism, such as that outlined by Senator Cruz-Coke.
He probably does not have the details of how difficult the municipal negotiation has been, which is by far the most difficult since the return to democracy, because we went from two traditional actors to the existence of multiple political actors, from Democrats to Republicans. But Luciano is right that this has to be accompanied by a political project that restores hope to Chile, not only to grow but to recover peace and understanding, leaving behind the logic of fragmentation and polarization. In this I want to highlight the role that Evelyn Matthei has played in convening the best professional men and women and experts from the opposition to think, first, in view of the municipal elections, about a program for the mayors and governors and then thinking about what What will happen in 2025-2026 in view of a government program.
They seem very confident that the government that has only 30% approval…
It’s the worst mistake we could make. It would be to think that it is only enough for the left or the ruling party to do it wrong to have the result assured. We cannot trust ourselves, we have to redouble our efforts.
How have you seen the disposition of the Republican Party?
It is legitimate for them to raise their aspirations, but it is legitimate for the entire opposition to establish an objective mechanism to define who the most competitive candidates are. Here there are three requirements that all candidates must meet: management, that they be good mayors and governors; second, that they have a track on probity and transparency; and the third thing, and this is what is still missing, is competitiveness. After the primaries we are going to have to do surveys to see who are the most competitive. We at the UDI are available to support all candidates, from Democrats to Republicans, who meet these three standards. And as a correlate, we are going to lower our candidates who are competing with them, but in return we demand the same support.
: “What the President did was speak to his toughest electorate and think about the municipal elections. And it’s bad news.”){kind=link}