In the 1990s, with Joaquín Lavín as mayor of Las Condes between 1992 and 1999, a stylon was consolidated municipal administration characterized by “cosism”. This is, characterized by worrying about the concrete things that affect people’s daily lives, which were apparently problems outside and different from national reality. Thus, this “cosism” promoted a strong rejection of country debates, as they were considered issues typical of political parties and politics, not anointing the communes as were the “concrete problems” (supposedly a-political). This style of municipal management sought, in the background, to build the image of an efficient municipality with a large realized capacity, which positioned the building as a good administrator. In the case of Lavín, so much was his popularity achieved as an efficient mayor that he was able to compete successfully in the 2000 presidential election, being a small percentage of beating former President Ricardo Lagos.
It is possible to find that this vision of municipal management was deeply rooted in Chilean politics, as both the Concertación and the right adopted the “cosist” style of Lavín as a means of profiling itself as “good municipal administrators” (by “good municipal administrators” this is talked about “the lavinization of politics” in the 1990s. As a result, to date it is common to see that in some communes there are mayors who, covered by their “administrative efficiency”, or remain in office again and again, or move from the mayoralty to other positions of popular representation.
However, the problem does not rest on “cosism” promoting concern about everyday problems (because this is fundamental in municipal management), but on the way in which it solves these problems is deeply depoliticizing. Indeed, “cosist” efforts build their “good administration” on the basis of two fundamental practices: 1) municipal clientelism, through which it benefits groups or individuals with administrative favors in exchange for obtaining their electoral support (the that generates the image of a municipality efficient in solving specific or immediate problems); and 2) the development of a kind of political management, through which concrete problems are solved without the need for communities to participate effectively in decision-making (which generates the image of an efficient municipality that dispenses with the involvement of communal actors). In other words, being in Chile today a good municipal administrator implies (for hegemonic common sense), on the one hand, establishing client relations with citizens, and on the other, solving problems and conflicts without the participation of the latter.
Moreover, what is really complex for projects seeking citizen repoliticization is not that municipalities have become mere breeding centers of clientele networks, but is the fact that social and communal organizations are also part (more out of inertia than will) of the lavinistic or co-scommon dynamics of politics. Indeed, both neighbouring boards and population organizations (or others) must participate in political managerialism and clientelism, since it is the only means that allows them to follow up on their claims and obtain concrete benefits for their in a scenario that profoundly limits social participation.
To date, despite the high degrees of territorial mobilization that have been achieved in different corners of the country in recent years, social disarticulation has not receded far enough to speak of a substantive change in the political culture of our communities. In this regard, it is known that today Joaquín Lavín has returned to the media stand occupying the same armchair that led him to political stardom in the nineties (the mayor of Las Condes), reaching such a level of popularity that recently the survey of the Center for Studies Publics (CEP) positioned him as the best-rated politician in Chile, at the same time as his measures have been applauded cross-cuttingly from left to right. However, rather than worrying about Lavín himself and its management (which is equally relevant), we must problematize about how the coslayer and clientele style of municipal politics remains strongly rooted in our political culture, identifying this way the challenges that this entails, first, for the dispute over municipal spaces, and secondly, for their transformation.
First of all, it is important to note that municipal lavinism has been reproducing in our communities for more than two decades, so dismantling it is by no means an easy task. The electoral dispute alone in the terms of the “good administration” professed by the right and concertation is not enough; but it is also not enough to return to the long-term thesis that the transformative sectors should be repleted solely and exclusively to the “re-articulation of the social world” (as if this involved a mechanical and short-term process). On the contrary, the reason why different parties and social organizations gave life to the Broad Front must prevail and be deepened: to restore the relationship between “formal” politics and society, combining the dispute of the spaces of power to the old neoliberal forces with the reconstruction of the social fabric and the strengthening of citizen organizations.
However, it is important to recognize that the current scenario of deep communal disarticulation and depoliticization forces us to make the struggle for institutional (and therefore electoral struggle) a central element in the development of our project since municipal management rests the main tool of reproduction of the management and client logic of the policy. Therefore, in view of the 2020 municipal elections it is relevant to give the priority that deserves to the possibility of competing successfully in the different communes of our country, which involves thinking seriously about building an opposition that, with clear transformative perspective, have the conditions to make hold of local governments. This does not mean, in any way, to shift “territorial re-articulation” from the centre of our concerns, but rather to assume that the repoliticization of our communities does not go through the mere will to “work with the foundations”, but by waging a political dispute in all the spaces from which the current state of affairs is reproduced.
Next, given that the debate presented here deserves to be dealt with with much greater depth and length, I would like to briefly address two aspects that need to be addressed in order to overcome the lavinist and clientele dynamics of politics. The first one says relationship with the current municipal structure; and the second with the political management that transformative forces must implement once they access communal governments.
As for the former, it is important to consider the fact that municipalities, as defined in current legislation, are bodies designed to exercise a managerial policy; “above”; that does not relate to citizenship but is in key clientele. They are administrative units that the dictatorship drew to function as walls of contention that separate the citizens of the state; that shift citizen concern to communal conflicts so that “big debates” are addressed by central power politicians and technocrats.
This municipal character, with the obvious complicity of the Concertación and the right, has remained largely intact until today, in front of which the measures that from parliament can be pushed to modify the municipal apparatus in order to make it more democratic (a recent example is the Community Plebiscites Bill, presented by Mr Tomás Hirsch and approved in the Chamber of Deputies).
With regard to the second aspect, it should be noted that despite having against institutionality, the transformation of municipal administration is largely due to the capacity of political organizations and parties to implement a new mode of management policy that sub-reverses current logics, which would, in principle, remove the mayor’s “Head of Home” halo that allows him to position himself and act with broad individual freedom, transforming him into a political representative of communal interests. It cannot be, for example, that when the public denounces the landfill ingfill in Valdivia the mayor is positioned from the sidewalk of real estate; or that when a community reports the pollution of its environment, the mayor defends business interests. On the contrary, the forces that lead the municipalities must, in addition to administering, represent the interests of the public to the point of confronting even the central powers when moving on to bring about communal well-being. However, this does not happen through the mere will of the highest municipal representative, but depends on how capable are the transformative political forces to operate a political project that channels citizens’ demands to make them their own and resolve them, diluting also the walls that may exist between the municipality and the citizens to make the first a space made by both the parties and the community. The latter suggests turning the role that militancies develop at the communal level, replacing their role as clientele network operators with that of tables that mobilize and project soc conflictivitytowards possible policy solutions that can boost municipalities.
There are examples that there may be other ways to govern our communes without resorting to lavinism (Sharp in Valparaiso and Jadue in Recoleta could be some references). We have the challenge of demonstrating that these experiences are not isolated cases, but represent the political-ideological project that we offer to Chilean society – and especially our communities. To close, it is important to note that the writing in this column is intended only to open a discussion, because it will only be the collective reflection of those who want another policy that will allow us to formulate responses
The content poured into this opinion column is the sole responsibility of its author, and does not necessarily reflect the editorial line or position of El Mostrador.
