Moderating the President – The Counter

The resounding victory of Gabriel Boric, on December 19, has caused a crowd of academics, journalists and morning analysts to appear in the media trying to explain the unprecedentedness of the vote that Sunday, both for the volume of votes obtained by the leftist candidate (more than 4.6 million) and for the level of electoral participation (more than 8.3 million votes). A common element in the explanations put forward refers to pointing out that what ensured the victory of the candidate of Apruebo Dignidad was the moderation that he showed in the face of the second round.
Such an explanation might be plausible, but what are they understanding by moderation? I believe that this question has not been answered in an obvious way in the discourse that is being installed with force in the mass media. It seems that they refer to something obvious and that, therefore, it is not necessary to explain. 
On the other hand, was Boric’s program ever so radical that it had to be moderated for the second round? I believe that the answer to this question is no, since it does not contain elements that seek to abruptly and profoundly modify the current order. In this sense, did anyone hear Boric or any of his close associates propose anything like an expropriation of large agricultural properties? Or did the candidate ever say that copper or lithium mining was going to be nationalized? Did someone from the command ever propose that big businessmen be stripped of their right to vote?
As the answer to all these questions is negative, then, it is evident that we were never in the presence of a radical or revolutionary program, and the proposed reforms seek to begin to overcome some aspects of neoliberalism, but are compatible with the maintenance of the market and private property. In this way, what we could call the heart of the program, is only limited to containing, in part, the profit, discrimination and abuse that operates in certain areas and guaranteeing a minimum of rights. That was what the President-elect remarked in his victory night speech: decent pensions without AFP, a public health system that does not discriminate on the size of the wallet, and not much more than that.
In this respect, I believe that the programme was, from the outset, moderate and, therefore, it was not necessary to moderate it substantially.  
Again we could ask ourselves: did anyone hear Boric, with a view to the runoff, say that he would keep the AFP? Did you ever say you wouldn’t seek remission of CAEs? Here the answers are also negative, so the supposed moderation appears more as an implausible explanation for the landslide victory over the right-wing candidate.
The above, however, does not imply saying that no changes were made. In fact, between the first and second rounds, several significant modifications were made: Izkia Siches was incorporated as campaign manager, issues that usually do not appear in the speeches of the left and are rather typical of the right were raised, such as the issue of migration and drug trafficking, an advisory council was created with economists from the world of the Concertación and the tone of the criticism of the past concertacionista.  
All this may be considered as moderation, but they would be moderations of a rather symbolic nature, not moderations of substance, since the program of transformations remains almost the same. Now, without ignoring the importance of these changes, to attract certain sectors of voters, I believe that they are not enough to explain the more than 2.8 million that Boric attracted in the second round.
The millions of young people, women and inhabitants of popular communes who went to vote last Sunday, did they do it because the leftist candidate received the support of Ricardo Lagos?, or because Boric promised to make changes with fiscal responsibility?, did they do it motivated because Boric met with Carmen Frei?, or because the expected collection was lowered by just over one percentage point of GDP with the tax reform for the four years of government, product of the negotiation with the command of Yasna Provoste? 
I believe that the overwhelming victory obtained by the candidate of Apruebo Dignidad, as well as the electoral participation, never seen before (55.64% of the register), must be sought in two different but complementary emotions. 
The first of these is the fear generated by Kast. Fear of Pinochetism, fear of authoritarian regression, fear of losing derSocial echoes, fear of going back on the rights of women and sexual dissidents, fear, after all, of what is colloquially, although imprecisely, called fascism. This fear was much stronger than the fear of communism, which was the one that tried to position the opposite side. I think that’s because communism is, for most Chileans, a scary ghost on television and social media. It is a ghost that is seen as something distant that happens in other countries. Interestingly, some of the most widely used examples in right-wing terror campaigns (Nicaragua, Venezuela, and even Argentina) are not countries where a Communist Party rules. And even more curious, the right almost never uses the example of China, where a Communist Party effectively rules. The communists they do business with are not a problem for the right. Thus, communism is a concrete threat only to a percentage of the elderly population who remember the traumas of UP.
On the contrary, the fear of Pinochetism is something concrete for millions of Chileans who, directly or indirectly, were victims of the dictatorship and who transmit orally their own stories or those of family and friends who were murdered, who disappeared, who had to go into exile or who lost a job or had to hide for a while. There are millions of Chileans who do not have to imagine the horrors of a right-wing dictatorship, because we live it in our own flesh. In my personal case, I don’t have to imagine how it feels to know that there are songs that can’t be played publicly, that there are names that can’t be said, that there are songs that can’t be sung. I don’t have to imagine the impression it makes on a child that the military burns alive or disgorges people who had no way to defend themselves. And so there are thousands of stories like these that are transmitted intergenerationally and make up a very real fear of Pinochetism.
The other explanatory factor is, in my opinion, the hope that there will be changes that will allow people to improve their quality of life. In this sense, on December 19 millions of Chileans voted in a manner consistent with their votes of October 25, 2020 and May 17, 2021. They voted hoping that, through the institutional route, their life will be a little less insecure and they can have certain rights assured. 
Therefore, appealing only to moderation as an explanatory factor for Boric’s triumph is, in my opinion, a discursive operation aimed at installing the idea that the new government will not seek to make changes that allow it to begin to overcome the neoliberal model, taking profit, discrimination and abuse out of areas such as health, pensions, education and the environment.
It is to be hoped that the hope placed in the newly elected President will not be frustrated by those who, indolently, hope that everything will remain the same, perpetuating the gatopardism of the post-dictatorship to continue maintaining their privileges.

The content expressed in this opinion column is the sole responsibility of its author, and does not necessarily reflect the editorial line or position of El Mostrador.

Original source in Spanish