translated from Spanish: Guillermo Teillier: “today the right is having fear. Fear to take responsibility”

end with the society of fear, persecution, torture, disappearance of Chileans, systematic abuse of the of human, reported to us within established by Pinochet since the 11 September 1973 onwards, that is the meaning that the Chairman of the Communist Party gives NO majority win in the plebiscite of October 05, 1988.
 Against the claim of the right to make his own not celebrating it as a democratic milestone, Guillermo Teillier is emphatic in specifying that lives right is not but fear, fear to take responsibility, to take the truth, to admit that it was responsible for this and This other, condition for a real reunion among Chileans.
As historical truth, it clarifies that the role that his party was, under 17 years of dictatorship, was that of the popular struggle to overthrow the dictatorship, fight that responded to the official policy of its Central Committee, adopted in exile Popular uprising, and not Insurreccional, as we have “absurdly tried to make believe”, distorting – says – the role of his party, and pretending to interpret the celebration of the not as a defeat to the politics of the PC. 
-What is commemorated in October 05? Remember that not, was a not a society of fear, of infringement of human rights who embodied the Yes of Pinochet?
-So. A No majority, on that October 5, 1988, to the fear that the dictatorship established in Chilean society. Fear that you caught, you take prisoner, you killed, tortured you, or disappeared. It is produced on a large scale. The terror had that goal.
– right and what are their fears on this anniversary?
– right fear is a fear to take responsibility. To assume the truth. And in that, I think we differ quite some who we are fighting against the dictatorship.

-Refers to his party, the Communist Party?
-We recognized everything. Everything that we did bass of the dictatorship. We have not hidden anything. The right has a dark side, which has not been able to bring it to light. It would be very necessary. The actors of the dictatorship have not been able to give the face. And I think that already they won’t it give. Across the country know what they did. It is not that I do not know.
– a moral lack of right?
– it is one thing to know by all the people. Another thing is to face itself. Say: I had responsibility. I was responsible for this and this other. It would be very freeing. In Chile there is why reconciliation. If they did, might be a reunion, with the openness that is needed.
– the sayings of the current Minister of Justicia Hernán Larraín, who voted yes for fear of ungovernability if not you won?  Do you you think?
– is a political fear. It depends on which for him means lawlessness. If it is lawlessness which others govern, bicker with democratic thinking, that in a moment can govern each and at other times other.  The democratic alternation. That was not in the mentality of the dictatorship. In the if.
– afraid to ungovernability? To lose control?
– fear of not having all the power in their hands, that they could dispute it is. Their expressions of that plebiscite meant a simple change of Government are also absurd. It is true that in the transition was a good degree of continuity and concessions to the dictatorship, but the horror, the crushing of all democratic freedom ended, that was already an essential change. The right clings to that continuity, they have maintained a significant share of power and influence in the country, almost undamaged.
– PC was faced with the dictatorship. How was that process?
– the party after the coup, until 1982, struggled to get the unit UP and approaches with the DC matches. It failed. In this context of exclusion and scattering arises our policy of the Popular rebellion. Politics of much mystique. We are fighting against the dictatorship with all efforts. With all the sacrifices that had to be done. And we did it.
– how was that decision?
– arrived at that conclusion after 10 years of the coup. See how we were being exterminated. We said, we have to find our own way out. Since no one wants to move forward with us, we are going to move forward. And we did it.
-The sociologist Eugenio Tironi has published what is celebrated in this 30 year anniversary of the triumph of the NO would be the defeat of the insurrectional perspective of masses led by the Communist Party.
-Its position is absurd. We already the year 1984, were clear that it had formed a block which, by other means, sought the same as us, the end of the dictatorship. It wasn’t any secret. That was also backed by the U.S. Government. With our exclusion. A path of consensus agreed.
– and the official policy of the Communist Party was the insurrectionary way?
– ours was not the insurrectionary path. There was a proposal in this sense of the management team to the interior of Chile, headed by Gladys Marín. But the plenum of the Central Committee defined that, which was made in Moscow, disagreed with the insurrectionary path. That is the historical truth. What was agreed was the policy of the Popular rebellion, based on the right to rebellion.
– how was this policy of Popular rebellion?
– the truth is that that was building over time. Even did not know if I would have or not forms of armed struggle, that is was designed along the way. We collected the experience of the protests, in which we were involved full, also of the French resistance under Nazism, popular uprisings in other countries, taking clear our own characteristics. That was setting up a form of mass participation involving forms of armed struggle at the end.
– conclusion reached?
– there were two possible exits. We didn’t know what would be imposed. But we knew that if we do not put all the effort in developing the policy of Popular rebellion, neither would be possible. That is documented. To get closer to the plebiscite very responsibly, with in-depth discussion, we decided to participate. It is not effective to you have improvised in three months. So of course, we use all forms of struggle, including the election.
– its looking for the dialogue?
– not take you merit for the conclusion, of what they did, of what you have done. But the truth is it was not advanced as we thought in the fulfillment of the program. Created a vacuum not filled until today.
– which would be his hallmark?
– certainly the advent of conciliation did not mean – as says Larraín -, a simple change of Government. It was something deeper: return to democratic tradition, with the possibility of deepening it.
– has been excluded the Communist Party?
– subterfuges to marginalize the Communist Party have existed historically. Recabarren was let it outside the Parliament, because they say he refused to swear in God’s name. It was really an apology. González Videla apology was that the Communists were going to make the revolution in Chile. I was going to start for the eighth Region by coal miners strike. We only defended the rights of their workers. And we stopped outside the law for 11 years.
–and in the years of the dictatorship of General Pinochet?
– subterfuge, during and after, was that we were supporters of violence. So for so long we were excluded from participating in policy on equal terms until well advanced democracy. It was the crisis of concertation which allowed to reach agreements and among other measures, to put an end to the Pinochet, replacing it with the proportional system, important democratic advance, that need to add the change of the Constitution.
– are you criticize today because they do not condemn the violation of human rights in Venezuela?
– is a new subterfuge. The right searches through agreements in Congress that we condemn the Government of Venezuela. To endorse the military intervention that leads to Trump. Our answer is emphatic: No.
– and respect for human rights?
– there is an international order with respect to this. But not endorsing coups or military interventions that would be the worst blow to human rights. It is our experience. it is contrary to our policy that violated human rights in any country, we respect the right to self-determination of peoples, and it seems to us that the economic blockades only hurt the population. Much concern about what happens in other countries, and more than 1,000 missing detainees of which nothing is known, smear and new part of the right account.
– to what attributes these subterfuges against his party?
– historically they arise or are running high when there are more alghidas confrontations of United States against other countries. González Videla with the cold war. For the coup and Pinochet, United States exit marked the guideline in Chile. The Soviet Union then falls. It seems that United States is omnipotent. But emerges this multipolar world. Among them Communist China which place you land in Latin America. And the PC in the crosshairs again.
– do the class struggle continues in the analysis of the Chilean reality?
– class struggle remains, still exists. And it will continue to exist. And the Communists we defenders of the rights of workers. Today we talk about the class half as antagonistic. That is a distortion. Because workers are also in the media sectors. Professionals and skilled workers, are more numerous. The core Trade Union was in manufacturing and extractive industry conglomerates, today almost disappeared, who subsist on small and medium-sized enterprises. Services and outsourced work, the informal and temporary have grown many. But the Trade Union and the trade unions remain and also the class struggle.
 

Original source in Spanish