Franco Parisi: "What I have discussed — yes, there is a majority in the PDG in favor of the accusation against Rabat"

From Alabama, United States, former presidential candidate and founder of the People's Party (PDG), Franco Parisi, has been closely following the discussion of the National Budget. "All day long I'm connected with the deputies, with the caucus, and with everyone in the PDG who is very concerned about the discussion," says the economist, who will return to Chile for a few days in December. There has long been talk of the possibility of him moving back to Chile. I understand that moving your family is complicated, but do you plan to return to Chile for good, with residency and everything? I think so. Speaking of the Budget, your party's swing-vote role stands out. What the PDG supports gets approved, and what the PDG rejects gets dropped. Well, that happens because Chile is extremely polarized, and we try to bring a bit of sanity to this discussion. Left- and right-wing ideology, or the ideology of the fascists and the commies, is doing great harm to Chile. We want the middle class and the people to be doing well. And why, in some cases, for example, did you decide to reject? Education, Interior, for example. Why did some cuts bother you and others not? I understand the rejections are a form of protest, right? Sometimes, by rejecting, the budget ends up better from our perspective. Remember, it's not that everything goes to zero. In the case of Education, we were very upset about what happened with the end of the "Yo elijo mi PC" program. We fought hard to keep that spending, which wasn't much for the government. We would also have liked the enormous salaries of the SLEPs to be reviewed, which hasn't happened. We believe the SLEPs in Chile are a fiscal drag. Is approving some things and rejecting others part of a strategic decision to play the middle? No, it's basically being proactive with the government, but also proactive with the opposition. You were the one who put forward this idea of being a proposition rather than an opposition. Do you still believe in that concept, especially when the government is starting to hover around 20% approval? No. To Caesar what is Caesar's. That concept (proposition) was the great Pamela Jiles's. Ah. Right, but you also embraced it. Do you still believe in that idea? Yes, absolutely. For example, we're trying to reach an agreement with the Potrerillos union, the smelter in the Atacama Region, so that, together with our deputy Paula Olmos, the union, and myself, we can work to bring in capital to strengthen the smelter and keep it from closing. Things like that, which I don't know what the government is thinking about, are things we do want to move forward. Isn't it risky to be proactive with a government that is doing badly in opinion polls, where it is losing popularity? It's true. But in politics, we're not here to keep betting on the winner all the time. And let's tell the truth: the traditional opposition is doing terribly too. So we try to do our best. With just the 14 deputies we have, it's not enough, and therefore we always have to play away games. That means, one way or another, seeking what's best for the people. But you're right. This is a government that will keep falling; it doesn't have a president clearly in office, he's completely absent, but we want to contribute our grain of sand. I understand you also have your own polls, and there are other public surveys too. Is it true that you are perceived as more pro-government than opposition? No, that's not the case. In fact, we're quite detached from the government. Our polls indicate we're growing strongly. We don't care what the establishment says about us being pro-government or opposition. If there's a good idea from the government, we'll support it. And if there's a good idea from the opposition, which so far hasn't arrived, we'll support that too. I assume you've been aware of the fuel conflict. You were critical in March of how the gasoline price increase was handled. Is the government now doing what it should have done earlier, by freezing prices? Sure, but it's not enough. That's the problem. Look, we've been discussing this with the people from No+Tag, with the interurban transport association, the tow trucks, the emergency vehicles. Every time I go to Chile I meet with one of those organizations... But the government doesn't understand the problem and believes everything gets solved in one of two ways. Either God will solve it... I believe in God, but God is a bit busy; or the market will solve it. And in the case of oil and gasoline, I don't know whether Minister Quiroz or President Kast thought this would be solved through the market: that is, if the price goes up, let the people be damned. And that's not how it is. One lives in a society so that society will protect one from unexpected situations. We were very critical from the start. Because all the fuel hike did was kill working capital, especially for small and medium-sized businesses in transportation. You say it's not enough now, because freezing prices doesn't bring them down either. Right, what happens is that these are two problems. One problem is the flow, and the other is the stock of working capital. I've spoken with many trucking companies, transport firms, medium-sized truck operators, bus companies. They all tell me: "I ran out of working capital." They took so long that in the end these micro-entrepreneurs or small entrepreneurs ate through their working capital, and now it's very hard to recover. That's the problem the government isn't realizing. On top of all that, there's the sharp economic decline. There's a problem of expectations, and optimism has disappeared in Chile. The constitutional accusation was brought against Justice Minister Fernando Rabat. Regardless of what those close to you tell you, is there any news from abroad about this crisis the government is going through? Yes. There's a very big complication that President Kast hasn't known how to handle. Many people in the government, at least those who talk to me, are very upset, because he has prolonged a chronicle of a death foretold. We have tried to tell the authorities that the best thing is for Minister Rabat to step aside. Right. You said that if it were up to you, you would have already removed him. Now, if you were a deputy, would you support the accusation? I would have to look at the accusation. I can't put myself in that position when I'm running for the Presidency. That's why I was asking you in the other scenario, if you were a parliamentarian. What I understand is that there are two currents. One, the constitutionalist current, and the other, the political current. That's within the PDG, right? In general, but in particular within the PDG. I think the political current will carry more weight than the constitutionalist one. It's hard to explain to the victim of a rapist, of a pedophile, that the perpetrator was set free and that there's no constitutional error. Therefore, I believe the political angle will weigh more than the constitutional one. But the opposition is so disorganized that anything can be expected. That's precisely the question I was about to ask. I understand that within the PDG there's a majority in favor of the accusation, right? From what I've discussed, yes, but we still don't know what we're talking about. Let's see the document; it has to be analyzed, it has to be discussed. Unfortunately, tempers in Parliament are too polarized. But you, as an independent force, given that you have been critical of prison benefits for people convicted of sexual offenses against minors, and that defending the people is one of your premises, why didn't you start your own path of legal study for an accusation? Because we know we don't have the backing. But the support comes together later. Why do you depend on what the PS, the Broad Front, or the PC proposes? Why didn't you carry out your own legal evaluation process if there was a basis for a libel? We introduced a bill to end those prison benefits. It was introduced by Deputy Roberto Arroyo, with the support of the entire caucus. But let's call things as they are. This is a political decision, not a legislative one. Therefore, we don't have the strength to bring a constitutional accusation. So we're not going to wear ourselves out over that. We prefer to be part of the decision, but not of the execution. In short, do you see a rather solid majority within the PDG to join the accusation? As I said, there are two currents for taking on the libel: one constitutionalist and one political. Let me review the report first. But I think the political one should prevail. This is a political problem, not a constitutional one. If not, let's take it to the Constitutional Court. That's my position. But obviously the deputies will have to discuss, analyze, and make a decision. What I hope is that the decision is made by a majority of everyone. The thing is, at one point there was Deputy Pamela Jiles's thesis, which was also political, not so constitutionalist, that the government shouldn't be brought down over this issue, but rather supported. It's a political reason. Yes, Pamela said that and we discussed it. She said it at a time when we didn't have all the facts. And the facts have kept mounting. In fact, the latest thing we learned is that decrees had been signed with the new undersecretary. I don't know, it's as if someone were telling you: "I won't do it again," and then they do it again. There's a lack of decorum and a lack of respect. I also think it was bad that they took so long to deliver the decrees. These are mistakes by the government that, sooner or later, will come back to haunt it.