"The photo served its purpose." According to Senator Karim Bianchi, that is what the government sought with the meeting at Cerro Castillo, where President José Antonio Kast met with the vice presidents of both chambers of Congress and with the chairs of the Constitution and Security committees of both bodies, amid negotiations over the security agenda. Moments after the meeting ended, the chair of the Senate Security Committee —interviewed on La Tercera's streaming program, Desde la Redacción, by Jorge Arellano and Rodrigo Álvarez— emphasized that "there was no agreement."
What impression did you leave with?
The meeting was aimed at re-energizing this agenda, which has already been re-energized several times. I leave with the sense that there is nothing new (...). There is no project added or removed (...) except that the constitutional amendment will be carried out, as had already been anticipated, by the members of the Constitution Committee. It will be an amendment to the state of emergency, with the power for the President to decree it, with the insistence on consulting Congress, which (will allow) certain neighborhoods to be cut off. A bit more of the same, minus the undemocratic element it could have had.
There were different versions from the government. Is it a fact that they will withdraw the reform?
It has not been withdrawn; on Monday a bill will be introduced that will be sponsored by that committee (Constitution). I don't know whether senators (Claudia) Pascual or (Paulina) Vodanovic will support it, but it has already been anticipated that (Andrés) Longton, (Arturo) Squella and (Pedro) Araya will. They have the bill, and that is the one that will move forward under the terms discussed in the committee. The government will review it on Monday, and there will be a rather forced and impractical approximation.
Were you asked whether the President would withdraw it?
Yes, he will withdraw it. Between now and Monday, (before) the new bill is presented. They will proceed to withdraw this (reform) so that the other one, which originates in Congress, can be introduced. (...) Lawmakers close to the government are coordinating a text with broader consensus.
The President had said his reform was "non-negotiable." Did you see him as open to dialogue?
They didn't just give it up — they surrendered. When (the government) says they will pull a bill, without even knowing the bill that originates in Congress, it means they have already surrendered. They are defeated in the scheme they had as their agenda; they are handed over to the agenda given to them by the lawmakers. It is regrettable, because when one has a conviction, one advances that conviction, even though one can still talk things over. Bills don't fail for lack of dialogue; they fail because they are bad. This bill was bad.
Did the meeting serve any purpose?
We were invited to give a new boost to the agenda, to use the excuse that we sat at a table so (they can say) we reached an agreement. No, we did not reach an agreement. (...) Nothing was advanced. (...) I think they wanted to re-energize it, and the photo served its purpose.