The now vice president of the Senate, Francisco Huenchumilla, in dialogue with El Mostrador, addressed the different dimensions of the political crisis that his party – the Christian Democracy (DC) – has faced during the last decade. In the opinion of the parliamentarian, “the DC has experienced a process of deterioration in recent years, a product of the fact that we are no longer the great party of the 90s: today we are reduced to 5 deputies and 3 senators.”
A critical reality increased by the escape – which took place in October 2022 – which included historical and important militants such as the governor of the Metropolitan Region (RM), Claudio Orrego, and the former minister in the governments of Patricio Aylwin and Michelle Bachelet, René Cortázar. All this in the midst of internal tension due to the party’s decision to lean towards the Approval in the last constituent plebiscite, deepening the severe fracture that has ended up exposing the struggle between those two irreconcilable and distant worlds. Two worlds that were headed by Senators Yasna Provoste and Ximena Rincón, who until the latter’s departure from the party, functioned as “generals” completely opposed to each other.
In fact, there are those like Senator Matías Walker, who accuse Provoste of acting in an authoritarian manner, imposing terms, exercising a degree of power, which the parliamentarian believes, has no degree of counterweight within the party. In this regard, Huenchumilla, a natural ally of the former DC presidential candidate in the Senate, said that it is not good to “personalize political debates,” and said that the fact that a single person can exercise a kind of authoritarian role is something that does not correspond to an objective vision.
In addition, the historical Falangist militant clarified the differences between his political vision and that of the government, and tried to dispel doubts as to the role he should fulfill and the place where the DC should be positioned, from now on. “Today there is no bipolar thing between capitalism and a challenger, so the DC has to accept that today capitalism triumphed in all parts of the world, and that what we are trying to do, in the face of neoliberalism and capitalism, is to have a Social and Democratic State of Law,” said the parliamentarian for the Araucanía Region.
What is your analysis of the internal political situation in the DC in recent years? What do you think should be, from now on, the “great challenge” that mobilizes the work of the party?
-The DC has experienced a process of deterioration in recent years, as a result of the fact that we are no longer the “great party” of the 90s: today we are reduced to 5 deputies and 3 senators. And in addition, today we face the challenge of modernizing its political program, its electoral programs, its internal organization, and its vision of how it is inserted in this changing world. I believe that this process is an important challenge for the DC, in its search to overcome this critical situation that we have been experiencing in recent years, above all. Now it is necessary to ask whether a party anchored in Christianity has anything to say in this world. That is the great challenge that DC has today: how it takes a leap forward and positions itself in the twenty-first century, in a world that is very different from the one that gave it its best triumphs, as it was for example in the 60s and then with the return of democracy. That is the challenge that DC has, in my opinion.
What do you think of that hypothesis that raises the internal coexistence of two strong sectors in the Falangism, between a group commanded by you together with Senator Provoste – with an ideology closer to the center-left, and even the ruling party – and another group more linked to the DC tradition? Could that division contribute to the internal crisis expressed in the recent flight of militants?
-In no party there is unanimity, I think that all parties have groups or sub groups that may have different visions on many things. So, a political party by essence is a place of debate of ideas and visions that are held in the country. Therefore, that does not strike me, the important thing is that the different visions and groups can have a common denominator, first of all their ideology and the values they have, and of the internal democratic method through which problems are solved. And therefore, if there is a lowest common denominator that can be inwalk; But when there is a centrifugal force, where everyone wants to take over the party for their particular point of view – deteriorating internal democracy – it is that these kinds of problems happen.
I think that the DC did not have the virtue of being able to channel the differences that existed, and that is why this leak occurred and everything we have witnessed in recent months. And that is why I say that the DC has the challenge of standing up from all this crisis, making transparent its proposal of ideas and internal reorganization throughout the country.
What do you think of Senator Walker’s statements that Yasna Provoste’s power would have no “counterweight” within the DC? How much control and influence does the former presidential candidate possess in the internal Falangist?
I think it’s not good to personalize political debates, because if you look at the DC from the 90s onwards, you could name between 10 and 15 people who always had a great influence on the party, including also the Walker family. So, to say that now a single person (Yasna Provoste) exercises a kind of authoritarian role, is something that seems to me that does not correspond to an objective vision, because the DC has had great leaderships and very influential people – some more than others – and, therefore, there will always be that type of leadership.
I don’t think that the senator (Provoste) is responsible for the crisis that the party has had and that some people have emigrated from the party. Those who left the party did so because, fundamentally, they are people more inclined to the center-right, than to the traditional political vision that the party has had. So, I believe that this is typical of an internal debate, and what the DC has to do is modernize and have a party organization and a vision about the problems of society and the economy, according to the reality of the twenty-first century.
In your opinion, could the media explosion of the conflict or confrontation between Senators Yasna Provoste and Ximena Rincón contribute to the increase of this internal crisis? Could this situation be handled better?
It is that the parties have to have mechanisms to process the differences that may exist, and of all kinds, between prominent militants. And I believe that the DC has an organization that remained in the past, and that must be modernized, because a party organization is key for a party to function well, with participatory and deliberative militants, who have political training and who participate in debates. This is key for internal democracy to function properly, and thus process differences. If this is not the case, the party identity is broken and each one starts on his side, and that brings with it the crises we are experiencing. It is the same thing that happens in the Chamber of Deputies or in the Senate, which have to have mechanisms to process differences and make decisions. So when political parties become fragmented, it costs a lot to do that processing and make those decisions.
-And correct differences for what? What is the next step for a party in obvious transit?
I believe that DC was born as a political alternative, on a world stage where the struggle was between capitalism and communism. That struggle ended with the fall of real socialism and globalization, but the great triumphs of the DC were in the government of Eduardo Frei Montalva, in a polarized world. A polarization that brought many misfortunes in the world and that in Chile ended, unfortunately, with the coup d’état of 1973. But when we regained democracy we were in a different world. Today there is no such bipolar thing between capitalism and a challenger, so the DC has to accept that today capitalism triumphed in all parts of the world, and that what we are trying to do, in the face of neoliberalism and capitalism, is to have a Social and Democratic State of Law.
What if they share this idea that is the matrix of the government’s ideological discourse? So how do they differ?
-The alternative that we promote implies accepting the market economy, but not accepting the market on social issues such as health, education, pensions, or the environment, among others. So, under this logic, small and medium enterprises must be part of the DC, and for that it is necessary that we are not afraid of entrepreneurship and the participation of the private sector in the economy. So, it’s a different world that we haven’t yet assumed, and that I think we have to assume.
What is your vision about the government and its challenges going forward? How should the Executive face this, his second year in office?
Today we have a government headed by a new generation of politicians, to whom the country handed over the leadership of the State.The experience departed with great enthusiasm, but then landed drastically, because he realized that apart from the energy of renewal experience is required. Then, in the face of that, the old method of democracy is repeated, which is conversation, dialogue and the search for agreements. Because what we seek is to move forward, but at the same time to have political stability, avoiding having great frustrations. But we seek political stability to achieve economic development and have social peace, which are the great objectives that every government should have, and that the opposition should also have, because beyond having different opinions, they understand that we are living in democracy, and living in democracy means that.
You were one of the promoters of the DC’s support for the Apruebo in the failed constituent process. From now on, how do you face this new process? What are your expectations?
-They are different processes. In this second process I believe that we are all interested – not only the DC but the whole political world – in this working well and we can all be for the Approval, because if we divide again, it will mean that this process will not be well carried out, which would be bad for the functioning of democracy.
Do you feel that the government and the center-left are under pressure to end this process once and for all, because it is also part of your own political agenda and your own electoral commitments?
I don’t see this as something circumstantial for the government. I believe that this constituent process is a matter that concerns the whole country, both the ruling and opposition parties, the whole of Chile, because what it is about is that people feel that in the midst of all these turns that we have given, the product is something that has legitimacy, and that advances in the doubts left by the Constitution of 1980 and the failed process of 4 of Chile. September. So, beyond the merely academic that this process may mean with the participation of experts and a series of safeguards that have been taken, the great challenge facing this Constituent Council and this new process is to present citizens with something that is good and that responds to their main doubts and demands.
Because if we have a Constitution that goes to the other side, that is “gatopardezca”, and therefore, nobody is changed and simply a tweak is made, then we are concealing the possibility – underground – that the problems remain there and at some point this will arise again. So, that’s why I think this goes beyond the programmatic interest of the government and what the opposition may want, it is the country that needs to close this process once and for all, especially this year, when we are commemorating 50 years of the coup d’état. The idea is that with this new constituent process we close a chapter and take a leap forward with the rules of the game that are legitimized and accepted by the people.
Follow us on
