The well-known electoral forecasts indicate that the population divides their electoral preferences into three-thirds, where the most loyal electoral accessions have a willingness to vote in the primary elections called by these political groups, so we have that the Cadem survey “showed that 22% would participate in the primary in Chile Vamos (UDI, RN, Evopoli, PRI), 17% would do so in the pact formed by the Broad Front (FA) and the Communist Party (PC), and 16% would do so in the conglomerate formed by the DC, PS, PPD and Radicals. By contrast, 29% would not vote in primaries.”
As for the next general election on 11 April, to ely off constituents, mayors and councillors, as well as governors, it is highly likely that together the left centre (Constituent Unit) and left (FA and PC) will get a vote close to 80% of the one that reached the apruebo, that is, to reach 2/3, but the degree of dispersion of the votes by lists and the high participation of independent candidates, which reach 60%, cause the elected constituents to distribute them in similar parts both the supporters of the conservative precepts of the current constitution and those who advocate constitutional guarantees to fundamental social rights. This, without hesitation, will generate great frustration in the national population and highly conflicting political processes that will be expressed on the streets. Since in fact we will end up with a new constitution in the formal, but materially very similar to that of Pinochet-Guzmán and traditional Chilean constitutionalism.
Precisely because of this – an uncertain and conflicting constituent process – the presidential and parliamentary elections will regain remarkable political importance. Most predictably, in the first presidential round and parliamentary elections the right will get the third largest, while the DC, PS and associates in front of the PC, FA and associates, both stay with about the other two-thirds, but will have to enter to compete with each other to enter the presidential second round. On the other hand, depending on the degree of dispersion with which these electoral pacts act, minors or greater will be their effective parliamentary representations. In municipal elections it is certain that the right will take most municipalities and the same in the case of governorates, which is not a minor fact for political conflicts that come with constituent frustration.
Politically, the central question will be which sector of the opposition will go on to compete in the presidential run-round. According to Criteria Research study, the most mentioned candidates were Sebastian Sichel with 53% and Pamela Jiles with 49%. The PC, FA, and associates are more likely to move on to the second round. Put shortly, we would have a situation similar to the first round of 2017, but now winning the FA and PC. It should not be forgotten that the FA exists because it has had the merit of bringing together a democratic left that during the governments of the Concertation and the New Majority did not feel called by the PS clientelism or the verticalism of the PC, most of its leaders and political tables were formed in the student and university mobilizations of 2006 and 2011. But it may well happen that the Second Round passes the Constituent Unit. The April 11 votes will give good clues about that.
For now, the constituent unit’s electoral political conflict is that in the next legal presidential primary, D.C. candidate Ximena Rincon has the best chance of winning, which takes away both ppd and PS sleep. While it is true that The charismatic potential of Paula Narváez gives her some chances of triumph. The truth is that if Rincon is elected, the desertation of the traditional PS vote and somehow the PPD will be high. Should the Constituent Unit move on to the run-off, narváez will be a better candidate than Rincon to summon FA and PC voters, so as not to replicate what happened to Alejandro Guillier in 2017.
The government program as a criterion of discernment
What has been reiterating the social movement, left-wing intellectuals and experts, as well as some political parties, is that the neoliberal political model that governs the economy, the social and the cultural in Chile must be ended. The sustained development of postwar capitalism that was characterized by growth ishighly redistributive income, which is known as the 30-year-old golden age (1945-1973), comes to an end in the 1970s, due to the limitations of expanded capital reproduction. This crisis is confronted by a set of political, economic and social measures, which has been called the period of “neoliberalism” and “globalization”.
It should be noted that, in a survey taken at the time of voting in the plebiscite (“What was the main reason why you voted approve?”), 69% responded that to guarantee social rights in pensions, education and health, as well as 36% to end Pinochet’s Constitution. Here preferences for constitutional guarantees for social rights are overwhelmingly clear.
The axis of the discernment criterion for making political pacts is an antineoliberal political agenda that really meets the economic, social and cultural demands of large national majorities, for which at least the following must be proposed:
1) The status or socialization of social benefits in health, social security and education. It may well be through forms of co-management between the state and organized civil society, not by private companies.
(2) The regulation of industrial relations ensuring trade union ownership, economic sector wage negotiation and absolute respect for the right to strike, as is the case in most OECD countries. This is essential not only to improve the rights and incomes of workers, but also to improve their capacity for labour, social and political bargaining. This is also decisive for taking on the technological revolution, the development of productive forces, since only by raising wages are innovations that increase labour productivity made.
(3) With regard to the financing of social rights guarantees, the tax case is another crucial issue. Soon our system should aim for most of the revenue to come from direct and not indirect taxes, such as sales taxes; and that those with the most taxes pay the most taxes; and eliminate all kinds of exemption, avoidance and tax evasion until OECD averages are reached.
(4) In order to ensure public financing of social benefits, the state must regain ownership over all natural resources, including water, in such a way that the income and profits they produce are a resource of all Chileans. Between 2005 and 2014, mining companies earned $15 billion on annual profits (“funny incomes” beyond their normal earnings) of US$15 billion, or 20.5% of the public budget and 4.9% of GDP.
5) Another central source of public revenue is the monopoly income produced by public works such as: roads, highways and bridges, ports and airports, storage systems, water distribution and irrigation, etc.
6) Utilities are another important source of income and profits for the state, whether in the production and distribution of drinking water, electricity, gas, communications or information. It is always claimed that public works and public services are privatized so that these companies finance them and the state can use those resources for other, more priority social purposes, but the state can apply for those financings right there where private enterprises do: in the national and international financial system.
It is in the discernment of these programmatic points that the deslindes between the left center and the left are established. Thus, it is highly likely that all these parties will agree to constitutionally guarantee the provision of essential social rights such as health, social security and education with universal, free and quality access to all of them. It is recognized that in health and social welfare some beneficiaries can make contributions according to their income. These rights can also recognize the right to housing and a decent urban environment. Surely, they will also agree on labour rights as they are now recognised in the OECD.
The differences will become apparent when defining the financing of the benefits of these social rights, which is the time to clarify that these proposals are neither demagogicat nor populist. The first thing will be the differences in tax. But the central discrepancies will arise when considering the recovery for the state of income and profits that come from natural resources and water, works and utilities. It is at these points that the policies of aliAnza.
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.
){kind=link}