Skillful handling by La Moneda to defuse the truckers' strike

The massive strike carried out this week by various unions representing truckers —to which other transporters' organizations in different parts of the country gradually joined— has certainly been the most complex moment that President José Antonio Kast's government has had to face, and despite how difficult it was to defuse a mobilization that not only had spread practically nationwide within a matter of hours, but whose backing by broad sectors of the citizenry could also not be ruled out, La Moneda nonetheless managed to defuse it in a short period, thanks to the deployment of sound political handling. While in the run-up to the strike the government had announced the submission of a bill to soften the increase scheduled for last Thursday and contain future increases for a period of 90 days, once the mobilization took effect it became clear that a proposal of this kind was insufficient in light of the unions' demands, which, among other things, called for a reduction in the price of diesel, the elimination of the specific tax, and a review of other matters, such as the tag toll charge. That is how the Executive decided to withdraw its proposal and put Interior Minister Claudio Alvarado in charge of the negotiations, whose skillful work was even acknowledged by the unions themselves during the press conference held at La Moneda when the agreement was announced, positioning him as the key figure who managed to unblock the conflict. Certainly, it can be debated whether the fiscal cost of this understanding —over US$900 million, whose main pillars are an immediate reduction in the price of diesel, the freezing of fuel prices until March 31 of next year, and modifications to the mechanism for recovering the specific tax— is reasonable given the country's budgetary constraints, taking into account also that there are other social needs still awaiting attention. But faced with the scenario of this crisis continuing to escalate and potentially turning violent or seriously harming the country's productive structure, the reasonable course was to seek formulas that would allow its defusing in the shortest possible time and at a fiscally still affordable cost. The truckers' strike caught the government at a moment of particular political weakness —with a high percentage of citizen disapproval and with friction within the ruling coalition itself— which has partly resulted from some decisions that, although they may have been fully justified technically, were handled without sufficient political skill, creating a distance from the population and, with it, a loss of popularity. That is what happened with the so-called "bencinazo" at the end of March, where the historic increase in fuel prices was passed on without any criterion of gradualism, which many —even within the forces that support the government— considered a mistake. Almost eight months later, it is evident that the effects of the fuel price increase have not only been felt in the transport sector, but have directly impacted the cost of living, which would explain why this mobilization —unlike other transport strikes, which generally remained confined within the union sphere— on this occasion apparently resonated with the population itself. For that reason, it does not seem blameworthy that this time La Moneda opted for a more political handling of the situation, in which, while it saw itself forced to concede on the transport sector's demands, it also appears to be attuned to a citizen demand with a real basis, which helps convey the image of a government willing to listen and offer ways out. This made it possible to turn around a situation that at the beginning of the week looked extremely complex for the country, and in passing to prevent this strike from deepening the government's wear, which is nothing other than politics at its fullest. Based on what we have experienced these days, it is a valuable sign that the government is showing signs of being willing to deploy its political flexibility more effectively, which provides more tools to manage the conflicts that may arise. Even so, this must not make us lose sight of the fact that it is imperative to know how to set limits on the demands and pressures that organized groups or social movements may put forward. Good political handling must in no case mean ceasing to prioritize the use of public resources, nor that the way to appease conflicts is simply by opening the fiscal wallet, because that would mean ceding without more to extortion, feeding a highly pernicious cycle. Nor can it be tolerated that public order is seriously disrupted and that this carries no consequences of any kind, however legitimate the demands or petitions may be. The way certain political sectors sought to fan this truckers' strike or reap benefits for their own gain —as was the case of those deputies who proposed a constitutional reform to repeal the specific fuel tax— are warnings about the need to draw these limits with complete clarity, and that good and necessary political handling can never be confused with populism or laxity.