Jose_Antonio Kast:_"We do_not need_a new_Constitution"
https://www.msn.com/es-cl/noticias/otras/jos%C3%A9-antonio-kast-no-necesitamos-una-nueva-constituci%C3%B3n/ar-AA158J69
Jose Antonio Kast says that he was never withdrawn (from public service), not even during the “Vote NO” Rejection campaign, when he did not appear at the center of the political battle and for a year after he lost the election to President Gabriel Boric with 44.13% of the votes, he has continued working in the field and has openly communicated through social networks. It is precisely this anniversary that brings him back, raising his voice against the negotiations for the constituent (ie Constitution Rewrite) Process 2.0
In what can be described as his first public appearance after the defeat running against Gabriel Boric, you offered "constructive collaboration" with the new government. Evaluate yourself: Have you kept your word?
Totally. On the day of (Boric’s) victory, I was with him and offered help & collaboration so that his government was successful. However since he appointed his ministers and made his assumption of command, he began to show what his real intentions were going to be, which were far from what he said in the second round run-off. And we began to see/know the “real” Gabriel Boric, the one who assumed the leadership of the campaign for the draft of the constituent (ie constitutional rewrite) text. How can we collaborate with someone who uses deception to win votes?
Had you had different expectations?
I thought he was appointing a cabinet that was more connected to reality, and what I saw was a cabinet connected to the most radical political world: the PC (Partido Comunista) and the Broad Front, leaving out what one could say was the more moderate left, something that it is trying to reverse after the September 4 vote (ie plebiscite vote), but is not succeeding and the style of government is not changing. Security problems have increased, the issue of uncontrolled migration continues while the President travels the world not visiting important/voltile parts of Chile. I don't see how I can collaborate with a government that hasn't lived up to its intended promises, that doesn't have the capacity or the experience to govern and that day after day continues to sink Chile.
The President has made rectifications. After the defeat of the plebiscite, he turned to Democratic Socialism to shore up his administration. Isn't that a correct (encouraging) sign?
And so who does he appoint as Minister of the Interior? Someone who is questioned in the Comptroller's Office with a trial of accounts. Who are you appointing in the position of relations with Congress? A person who badly led the environmental issue with Michelle Bachelet’s government. A person who celebrates a small triumph of the presidency of the Chamber as if he were his birthday party. That is not understanding.
There have been twists on the security issue, which is a priority for Chileans...
Yes, after eight months they convene a commission that is subdivided into subcommittees. Do we really need more redundant/useless commissions to know that you have to simply apply the law? He (Boric) is not transparent about the modifications he has to (wants to) make to the State Security Law… what are the modifications to the Anti-Terrorism Law? What is Boric doing on the issue of illegal migration. Boric was met with the President of Peru, did he achieve anything on the issue of migrant transit or criminal organizations that use Peru as a jumping-off base to pass through Bolivia? Boric is a friend of the President of Bolivia. Has he worried about what they are doing with human trafficking from Venezuela, from Colombia to Chile? Nope.
Does you find anything good in this current government?
Unfortunately, I do not find anything positive about the government of President Boric.
You are very harsh in your appreciation of the government's performance. Recently, Minister Ana Lya Uriarte highlighted the collaborative and non-obstructive spirit of the opposition. Are you alone in your assessment of the President?
No, I think I play a large percentage of the eight million who said no to the President as campaign manager for the new draft Constitution. I can still have differences through the Chile Let's Go (Chile Vamos) party.
It has, that's obvious...
But let me be very clear that our adversary is not Chile. Come on, he (Boric) on the left wants to overtly reform the institutional bases of Chile. I have differences with Chile Vamos, but we are basically complementary. I want us to become a unified government that carries out a policy that confronts crime, immigration, inflation, education. We have to be complementary, but we do have important differences.
Which?
We do not want a new constituent (constitution rewrite) process. We don't want to go through the same thing again. We warned him on November 15, 2019: that it had been an agreement based on violence and that it was going to be a failure. A year before the plebiscite I said that they were going to lose it, because they (ie the leftists) feel they are the owners of the truth and the citizens are going to vote NO against that stance.
The greatest triumph of the opposition so far has been the plebiscite on September 4...
That was Chile's greatest triumph. It was not a triumph of the opposition to the government. Eight million people voted against it. It is the highest vote that any political option has had in the history of Chile. In other words, the President got four and a half million votes. If we add them to the votes that I obtained, which were three million 600 thousand, between the two of us we tied the Rejection vote.
Sure, but that was mandatory voting...
What I want to say is that the opposition cannot claim all the victory. The Republicans contributed a very important base: 8% of the first election, 22% of the Rejection, 44% in the second round, but we needed more. And that additional came from the common sense of citizenship. In the final run Chile as a country woke up. But the government is still sleeping.
In that campaign, did you opt for a low profile or were you relegated to the background?
I assumed a role that was the one that was suited to my position: touring Chile completely. And I don't have to do that through the media, it's done on the ground. We took on the challenge of having one proxy per table and we covered 45% nationwide, we went on a tour for the truth, with the deputies, with the councilors, with the Core... I was more active than ever, but not through the media. What I can say for myself is that it would have been a destructive element for the substance of what was being discussed. It was not discussed whether this was a Constitution of the right or of the left, it was discussed whether it was going to be a good constitution for the future. And what we did was simple reveal what was proposed on paper so far.
Does that have to do with the resistance that your image generates in part of the electorate?
No, in fact, getting three million 600 thousand votes is the second highest vote that someone on the right has obtained, because I was 100 thousand votes away from getting the same votes as Pinera. I, at least, do not see what they say, "no, look, it's that your figure...". Our work as Republicans has helped stop the reformation project of the left.
Didn't you feel a bit treated like Alf in the campaign, that you had to hide him when visitors came? What was there to hide from those who wanted to vote Rejection for a bad job at the Convention, but didn't want to vote for the Kast option?
No not at all. We took the position of not leading the Vote NO campaign in January. What had to be done here was to make people aware of what the Convention was doing, which felt that it owed to Chile. And the only intervention in which I had to participate was in July and it was not understood by many on the right. What he was saying was: Mr Comptroller, do your job, monitor the government's electoral intervention. And what did we achieve? That the citizens understood that the campaign manager for that constitutional project was Boric and that the defeat was his.
You concede that a part of Chile Vamos was uncomfortable with your intervention...
Chile Vamos always overreacts. A few days after the second round, people were debating who was the leader of the right-wing. What purpose does that have? What we need is more leadership, not who is the leader of the right-wing.
The point there was another: not to recognize it as primus inter pares...
That is why I say that Chile Vamos is wrong. Let's see where the adversary is.
Do you think they sees you as an adversary?
It's just that I've seen statements by some leaders in Chile. Let's Go, the first thing they point out is that they are going to differentiate themselves from the Republicans. What they have to do is warn that the danger is in the radical left, not in us. We are not here to make Chile uncomfortable. Come on, we are here to do the political work and confront the left-wing.
Do you think that the right-wing managed the Rejection's triumph in the 4 September referendum well?
I think they have made all the mistakes they could make. On September 8, they were talking with the government to see what the formula was for drafting a new Constitution through a Convention. And that was a big mistake, it ignores the will of eight million people who told them "we don't want a new Convention." And that is not breaking the word in the commitment, because there is a Congress that is empowered to make any modification that you want to make to the current text. The right wing of Chile Vamos agreed to lower the quorum for any modification. Why go back to the same failed model of choosing a new Convention to draft a new Constitution? Chile today does not require a new Constitution, it requires us to face the real problems. These days they spent 14 hours discussing the new constituent body, and in between they killed a person on the Cavancha beach in Iquique, they assaulted and organized 10 road blockades in Chile.
But those who are sitting at that table are not responsible for security in Chile. A government, furthermore, can ride a bicycle and chew gum at the same time...
It seems that is not so. Rather it appears that the President only rode a bicycle from La Moneda to his house one day and did not see what was happening in Chile. And the responsibility, not only of the opposition, but also of the government parliamentarians, is to tell him that he governs.
Why do you believe that a new Constitution is not necessary?
What Chile needs to face is the “real problems”. The issue of crime, education, housing, immigration, health, do not need to have a new Constitution. The division between politicians and reality is getting bigger every day and it will end in a second failure. If you want to make modifications to the constitutional text, you have to do them through institutional channels. But if they tell me that we need a complete new Constitution, from a blank sheet of paper, I say no, it is not necessary. Chile does not need a new Constitution, it needs a government that governs, a strong and courageous government that faces reality.
What happens with the people who in the first plebiscite voted that a new constitutional text was required?
There were more than five and a half million people, if I'm not mistaken, in the first plebiscite. And there were eight million people who said NO. The last democratic act that took place in Chile under a new government, from the left, with compulsory voting, that therefore is the last (ie final) vote.
There is a lot of voluntarism in his analysis, because many people who were in favor of the Rejection, including a center-left sector, did so by pointing out that they did not reject a new Constitution, but rather they did not like the text offered by the Convention. They are two different components to realize.
I agree. And what have the Yellows said now? They do not want a new conventional constitutional process.
But they have said they want a new Constitution...
No problem.
But you just said you don't think it is necessary...
No, let's see. What I am saying is that we do not need a new Constitution. I understand that others want a new Constitution.
You say that in the 62% who voted Rejection, the implicit message was that they did not want a new Constitution.
What I said is that the eight million is more than the political opposition. There may be people out of those eight million...
Have good faith in the analysis, you are comparing apples to pears. A voluntary vote is different from a mandatory vote, if a projection is made.
They are assumptions, because perhaps if there had been a mandatory vote I would have won the Presidency. But these are assumptions... The reality today is that there is compulsory voting.
But don't you recognize that in that 62% of people who voted Rejection, there were people who wanted a new constitutional process? It was recognized by the president of the UDI altiro...
That is one of the big mistakes of the president of the UDI.
Are you not going to agree in any way to a constitutional agreement?
It is that point, it would be necessary to distinguish if the constitutional agreement goes through a new Convention, then no.
But different formulas have been discussed: 100% elected.
It is that it is the same.
A mixed body...
It is that it is the same.
An agreement that passes or is endorsed by Congress, that has experts... Do you not like all that is on the table?
No, first we would have to see what agreement they actually reach. I would go back to what the Constitution states, that it is Congress that has to make the changes. Would you ask: What are the five most important reforms? Until now, I have not heard them, I have not seen them. The only thing I have seen is a founding (reformation) project that the radical left presented and that the President supported. And that is in writing. That is what I know.
And what has he lost
So it's something like "nothing has happened here after the explosion, and we go back to before".
Worse things have happened, because today we don't have a government that really faces the problems. In other words, we are in a worse situation than we would have imagined. It's been three wasted years.
If we pause, don't you think that a new social effervescence will be generated?
Wait, I'm not saying you have to pause. What I am saying is that Congress is empowered to make the necessary modifications on pension issues, on education issues, on health issues. What happens is that the government, even on these issues, is wrong and proposes a pension reform that will destroy the foundations of the Chilean economy, since it creates an entity managed by politicians. The government is focused on re-founding Chile and we have to pay attention to that and raise our voices. And I would love to see the presidents of Chile Vamos strongly oppose the tax and pension reforms.
I have not seen them applaud the reforms...
It's just that we haven't seen them say anything.
They have raised several objections regarding the pension reform, for example. It is not that they are applauding a reform promoted by the government.
Well, I would expect more strength from Chile Vamos to oppose the proposals made by the government.
As you see things, are you not going to sign the agreement that emanates from the negotiations of the parties?
It is the parliamentarians who are going to have to make a definition and what the Republican Party have said over and over again is that they do not want a new Convention.
They are not going to sign an agreement, then?
If it goes through a new Convention, no. Not from this kitchen.
But if negotiations or "kitchen" are part of politics...
But they have been a hundred days and they are not able to elaborate anything.
That stance locks you into what he is repeatedly told about being at the extreme end of the political spectrum.
No, we are at the center of common sense, which is what citizenship proposes. I invite any political leader from the spectrum to accompany me on tours of Chile and they will find the same thing that the CADEM polling survey tells them: concern for constitutional reform today occupies almost the last place of urgency.
Even so, it isolates him from most political forces...
The only thing I can say is that in 2017 they said that I was going to get 2% of the votes, and I got almost eight; that after the defeat of the entrance plebiscite there was no formula to overcome the left, and from 22% we went to 44% and a tied Parliament. And I can show you the posters of almost all the deputies and senatorial candidates from Chile Let's Go (Chile Vamos) who had photos taken with me. Was I isolated from the Chilean reality? It seems that no, it seems that we do interpret (represent) a large majority.
But Right-Wing strategist Cristian Valenzuela https://partidorepublicanodechile-cl.translate.goog/columna-de-cristian-valenzuela-el-rey-gabriel-i/?_x_tr_sl=es&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp at the time stated that Boric's victory was much more a defeat of Kast. That there was an anti-Kast vote rather than support for President Boric...
We lacked time to reverse that situation.
If a new constituent process is opened, will they (Republicans) participate in the voting?
If Congress decides to start a new constituent process, we are going to do everything possible to prevent the left from imposing its re-founding project, and that means disputing all the spaces.
Do you envision a joint future path with Chile Vamos? Because they insist on making a difference with you.
We have differences, but we are complementary. To become a government we clearly need to do things together.
Can you imagine a government of yours without Chile Vamos?
It is that it would subtract an important part of the people who have at least a common base. We may have differences, but I believe that we can reach agreements on how to carry out the development and progress of the country.
Are they not too much different in the long run?
We have differences. I am in favor of solidarity and I have been surprised that some parties have rejected the principle of solidarity.
The night of your loss to Boric, you pointed out that you did not know if you would be a presidential candidate again. Is a new presidential adventure on your horizon today?
What I always say and sometimes they tell me to say, that is a politically correct answer, is that we are concerned about the next generation and not about the next election. And the next election is going to come out positively for our sector if we do the job right today. If someone asks me, would you like to be President? I'd love to. Of course I would like to be President! But perhaps the circumstance or the opportunity will not arise, and perhaps a new leadership will appear that can take on that challenge. I will work every day so that our sector grows. If things happen, fine, and if they don't, we will have made a great contribution to unmasking that failed left.
Do you have any tentative date to define the factors that you will weigh to return to a presidential adventure?
The registration of the candidacies is in August of the year (2025) of the elections.
I am asking you if you have a date, in your political calendar, to define that path...
It is that our way is to do things well, it is to strengthen a structure, it is to generate awareness among citizens of how important it is to defend freedom, the freedom to undertake, the freedom of education, the freedom of conscience. And if one does things well, a probability that happens is that I am the world's candidate, but it is not something that makes me lose sleep.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
