A Constitution that manages our legitimate differences

A little more than two months ago, when we were summoned by President Gabriel Boric to the Cerro Castillo Palace as a parliamentary caucus of the Socialist Party, I had serious doubts about participating, because we had been “none” in our roles by some conventional and by the Executive itself. However, I chose to participate understanding that these instances often serve to tell us things “face to face”.
On that occasion, and before the stunned gaze of my fellow senators and cabinet ministers, I pointed out to the President that “we would lose the election of September 4 resoundingly solely and exclusively because of the arrogance of the conventionals, the approval of the Government to continue acting like this and the intention to write a new Fundamental Charter from the trenches and not from dialogue.” Even then he had the full conviction that the intemperately totalitarian attitude of the Atria, Barraza, Bassa, Stingo and others, had caused irreversible damage to the historical process and the option of the Apruebo.
I added to the above a sentence that this Sunday gave me the reason. “We are giving the Rejection between 2 and 3 million votes by incorporating the issue of abortion into the new constitutional text,” an issue that citizens had settled with the law of interruption of pregnancy under three causes, approved in the second government of President Michelle Bachelet.
President Boric’s response did not surprise me at all: “Fidel, I respect your words, but I think you are deeply wrong. We will win with comfort,” he said, saying that not only drew spontaneous applause from his most unconditional present there, but also looks of guilt towards me by fellow senators, who felt that a President should not be told the truth and less in his own home. I am one of those who think differently.
I have never confused loyalty with obsequence. This is how I have forged my political career, especially in the south of the country, with results in constant rise after each election, based on a close work with the people and their problems.
Touring the region, its fishing coves, the fields, the towns, talking with the world of sports and the elderly, among others, I realized that as the weeks passed and the conventional work progressed, we were on the wrong track. I was told again and again that “Chileans do not like polarization, the radicalization of issues and maximalism.” That is why I dared to speak and say that many matters exceeded citizen confidence and that we had to be prudent with Chile and our future.
For this reason I paid a high political cost, because I was insulted on social networks and accused of betraying my convictions, mainly from sectors of the most intolerant left. I also received constant threats.
48 hours after the “earthquake” of September 4, I tell them that my convictions are to defend citizens’ rights, always speak face-on and with the truth and never be silent when I see that there are things that are not consistent with the country that we all want to build.
It’s time to look ahead. The conventional lords responsible for this electoral debacle have already gone down in history. Their names will be engraved for having contributed to the failure of an unprecedented and historic process, boycotting it with their arrogance, arrogance and scarcity of dialogue, and for having written the new Fundamental Charter from anger and revanchism.

Original source in Spanish