I think so

Let's agree that the former president knows what she's doing. She has the instincts and sufficient experience to dodge mistakes, avoid rushing, anticipate, and provoke scenarios rather than wait and improvise a reaction. So her "I think so" cannot be interpreted as a slip or an off-script remark. On the contrary, she has taken a position on terrain where she swims like a fish in water. And true to her style, she does so in an alternative setting, which adds surprise and distance from more traditional spaces; in this case, the University of Concepción's channel, just as in the past it was Don Francisco's program to call for her cabinet's resignation or the El Bosque election to launch her candidacy in 2013. The tone is also in line with her attributes: it is close, she answers between laughs, as if it were a mischief, but one that leaves her entire sector in an uproar. Though it may seem inconsistent with her "good politics requires renewal" of 2025, this "yes" is in line with the course she set in September, when she delivered that "bad news" for "those who thought I was going home." Let's assume that the former president actually aspired to the UN secretary-generalship and trusted her chances of winning. That implies she intended to settle in New York for at least the five years the post lasts. If that is so and the plans failed, then the only alternative would be to interpret her interest in returning to La Moneda as a consolation prize. But even so, the timing doesn't add up. The former president doesn't need to rush to keep someone else from occupying that space. She is the left's candidate by essence. And so much time in the ring can end up being exhausting, as another contender in the race, Parisi, knows well, because one of his main risks is these four years of waiting, exposed to all kinds of comments, unforced errors, etc. Nor is it enough to interpret her move as a tantrum, or as taking a position to become the figure leading the opposition to that Kast who denied her dream of leading the United Nations. Of course that will happen, but Bachelet's move makes more sense when analyzed as a signal to the domestic audience and, therefore, her "I think so" is not read in electoral terms, but as a message to the left and its evident lack of a project and the risk of losing its fragile unity. Because the former president is the one who dreamed of, provoked, and brought about that integration that at one point spanned from the Christian Democrats to the Communist Party, even enduring the Broad Front's slights and its famous "critical collaboration." But not everyone agrees, as Carolina Tohá demonstrated in a recent column: "The mandate of unity that became an ethical slogan for building a majority today functions as a mental block against imagining any other alternative." And it hardly seems a coincidence that it was the same former minister who was first critical of Bachelet's announcement. Tohá believes that socialism "needs to clarify its strategic horizon and its promise of a future" and, with that goal, she has been seen working with younger sectors, building bridges toward the Broad Front, and participating in gatherings and rallies. Hers, rather than electoral, seems to be a political-doctrinal bet aimed at establishing socialism as a viable and renewed option. And she probably suspects that alongside the communists it is impossible to advance in that direction. So there we have Bachelet in a "let's protect the bloc's unity" mode, even if that means accepting that the PC will not renounce its defense of Cuba or Nicaragua, versus those who aspire to a renewal where the social democratic ideal is relaunched as a strictly socialist project, but one capable of grappling and competing with a promise of justice that the PDG puts into practice through diapers and medicines without VAT. The early emergence of candidates, whether or not they have real plans to make it onto the ballot, is uncomfortable for any government, but it grows and strengthens amid weak leadership and unfavorable polls. Kaiser, Parisi, Bachelet, Matthei, and others who watch without declaring themselves, like Paulina Núñez, are now parading around. But a lame duck six months into an administration sounds as improbable as it is definitively bad for the country. Former presidents had played a kind of republican role in democracy and, as such, were called upon by the sitting president to analyze some matter of state. Being floated as a potential candidate is incompatible with that role, but Boric and Bachelet had already established that with their critical statement on the handling of international relations. So the country loses some of that unwritten republican institutionalism, but the left gains in its goal of fostering an internal debate and advancing the construction of a proposal for an electorate that is no longer excited by the mere image of a more just and equal society. NEWSLETTEROpinionSaturday, AMIdeas in tension, opposing views, and clear analysis: elements to unravel the issues that divide opinions and will set the agenda. By subscribing you are accepting the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policies of La Tercera.