Last week activities in the Chamber were suspended, and the deputies attended Congress only on Tuesdays and Wednesdays to vote on all security issues. Thus, the eyes were directed towards the processing of the Naín-Retamal Law, which was finally approved, so it is now the Senate that is loaded with pronouncing -as of this Tuesday- regarding an initiative that has generated debates, given that it delivers presumption of justified use of the service weapon to police officers (privileged legitimate defense) in three scenarios: when they act in self-defense, of third parties or to prevent a crime.
The concern of the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights, added to the discomfort of a considerable sector of the ruling blocs, triggered the government to finally choose to resign itself to its approval, leaving in the hands of the Senate – including a series of indications that intend to modify the project – the future of an initiative that has the majority support of the right. Privileged self-defense is probably today the main point of conflict, which is already being discussed – first in the Security Commission and then in the Chamber – and which the ruling party hopes will be resolved as soon as possible.
In this scenario, of constant conflict and confrontation between ideological visions and party designs, actors such as the People’s Party (PDG) become unexpected protagonists, beyond the internal problems that caused the disintegration of their caucus and the resignation of the majority of their deputies. With less than two years of life, the collectivity has transformed into a considerable political force, being the second party with the largest number of militants in the whole country (45 thousand), after the Communist Party. And although the personal and media conflicts of its founder and former presidential candidate, Franco Parisi, could have affected in one way or another the public image of the store, they continue to bet on consolidating itself as a serious alternative, with a focus on the next elections of constitutional councilors and, above all, on the municipal elections of 2024.
In this regard, in dialogue with El Mostrador, the still deputy of the People’s Party (PDG) bench, Rubén Oyarzo, referred to his party’s position on the contingency of the security crisis, but also reflected on the political projections of his store, ensuring that although he recognizes Franco Parisi as a natural leader, Today they are also committed to empowering new leaders. The parliamentarian said that Chile Vamos decision to step down from the Security Table “was perceived by the people as a bad sign,” and although he assures that his party is not right-wing, he does not say he has problems dialoguing or building bridges with any political sector. “We are willing to talk to everyone, from Republicans to communists,” Oyarzo said.
What is the PDG’s position on the Naín-Retamal Law and the security agenda being discussed in Congress?
We see that the security issue, if it were not for the unfortunate tragedy that happened to Sergeant Rita Olivares, would have progressed slowly. We see that there are important issues that concern us about the People’s Party (PDG), such as Deputy Rivas was insisting on the defense of victims, which is an edge where no progress is made either. We have presented initiatives, such as the school safety project, which was presented in April last year, and we are still waiting for the Government to put urgency to it. There is also a bill that increases and aggravates penalties for crimes committed in shopping centers, and the Government has not given it urgency either, and it has not even been processed in the Public Safety Committee of the Chamber.
So, we are actually being very reactive to contingency: today security is the main priority of citizens. In the district, in Maipú, Cerrillos, Pudahuel or Estacional Central, people tell me that they require more police and greater security, but unfortunately these tragedies have to occur so that as a State – in its concept of State, without blaming only the current Government – we react.
What do you think of the indications presented by the Government for the processing of this project in the Senate, and the pressure of sectors such as Apruebo Dignidad to desist from some of its elements, such as theEgítima privileged defense?
Obviously, there are ideological blinders there that do not allow progress on security issues, and unfortunately when ideology intrudes, it is the country and the citizens who lose. Because I insist, unfortunately already in March we already had two deaths of the police, in an institution that was mistreated by these same political sectors that today, by ideology, do not want to advance in terms of security.
Meanwhile, and considering that three months ago -in the midst of a security crisis-, Chile Vamos withdrew from the Security Table convened by the Ministry of the Interior.
First, I can’t speak on the right because I don’t belong on the right. We are a centrist party, close to the people, and we are not the opposition, nor are we official. So, in that sense, I cannot speak for the right. Now, I insist that we have presented projects on security issues since April 2022, which to date has not yet been given urgency. Eight months passed and only 1 bill was advanced, which is the critical infrastructure project; And only in December 2022 did certain projects begin to be urgent, but because the crisis was the worst the country was experiencing after 30 years. So, I insist that more than putting obstacles, here we must get to work and have the will to collaborate and dialogue to reach agreements. We did not get off the government’s security table, we remained because we firmly believe that there should be an effective, efficient and modern defense for victims. We believe that the prosecutor’s offices have to be modernized, and the police have to be given all the powers and tools so that they can do their job in the best possible way.
But do you think it was a bad sign from Chile Vamos to withdraw from that instance at that particular time? What do you think of those sectors that seek to capitalize in political terms, the fight against crime, drug trafficking and organized crime?
I think that the fact that Chile Vamos got off the security table was perceived by the people as a terrible sign, because here we have to reach agreements, seeking to collaborate and dialogue, and not subtract from reaching solutions on security issues for the people. In fact, no political sector can pretend to take security to the house or refuse to discuss security issues.
Security is neither left nor right. What is clear is that the government gives a bad signal with the pardons, and that also affects its management. In this regard, we as PDG criticize the pardon categorically, but nevertheless we do not get off the table, because the country’s priorities are, precisely, security, the economy, illegal migration, among others. And we cannot subtract from that, because we must offer concrete solutions today, and that is the problem of Chile, that if the political sectors are subtracted to debate and to legislate – which is our job – unfortunately the country does not advance.
Do you consider that the next elections of constitutional councilors, the PDG is playing much of its political weight? Is the constituent process the ideal instance to grow as a party? Do you see a lack of interest in the process on the part of citizens?
The first thing is to make it clear that we are a real alternative of governability, and we are also the second largest political party at the national level, with more than 45,000 militants throughout Chile. For these elections, we have candidates in all regions of the country, except the Valparaiso Region, and I think we are a real political alternative for the people. Now, and without discussing that this constituent process is important, for people the truth is that I think it has not been so relevant, what is reflected in the surveys is that citizens are not very informed, and not much expectation has been generated in this new process. So, for us the most important thing in terms of public elections will be the municipal elections, and that is where we are going to play 100% our cards. Now, if you ask me if this is important, I think it is important, and the PDG is going to do well in this process, I am sure of that because it is perceived on the street. But nevertheless, I think that here we need a little more to get closer to the date so that people are more excited.
-What is this positivism based on in the face of this constituent process? What is its advantage, in relation to the traditional parties of officialism and opposition?
I am sure that the PDG will do well, because we are connected with the people, we are close to the citizens – something that other parties do not know.Ienen-, and that we also use the tool of digital democracy, which for us as a political party is very important, considering that we are the only party that uses this tool, which we will use again in this process.
A short time ago the PDG was spoken of as “Franco Parisi’s party”, is that still the case? How relevant is the role of the economist within the community?
While Franco Parisi is our natural leader, and that is indisputable, in the party we are also seeing many regional, local and intra-party leaderships at the national level. There are many leaders that we want to highlight and that we have to make known, because we are a new party (we have only been 1 year), but we have many leaders at the national level who are important.
Finally, why do you think there are many who trade the PDG as a right-wing party? Do you think it is possible to build a serious political project, beyond the enthusiasm generated from its appearance in the political sphere? With whom would they not be willing to ally?
-I have been treated from “poor facho” to communist, which I think somehow graphs that situation. But I think that beyond that, we are a centrist party, which seeks to connect with citizens through instances such as digital democracy. Because being in tune with the people is the essence of the party, and we are not pigeonholed either on the left or on the right, because we believe in a state for the common good, and not with ideology and its political parties.
On the other hand, the alliances will be seen in their minute. For example, for this constituent process we did not go with any alliance, but we spoke with all the political parties, so that will be seen when appropriate, and we do not close ourselves to anything because we talk to everyone, from the left to the right, the entire political spectrum. We have no political bias to talk to, either with Republicans or with communists.
Follow us on
: “There are ideological blinders that do not allow progress on security issues”){kind=link}