Chilean Deputy Tomás Hirsch: "Russia & Chile have a lot of common ground"

A month and a half ago, Chile once again made the whole world talk about itself. On December 19, 2021, this distant Latin American country reproduced, as it seemed from the outside, a dramatic collision of half a century ago - a single candidate of the left, perceived by many as the ideological heir of Allende, opposed the ultra-right, who openly called himself a Pinochet supporter.

RUSSTRAT described in detail this confrontation, as a result of which the Chilean left took historical revenge in order, as they claim, to turn the page of history - to overcome the legacy of "Pinochetism" and the model that survived the general himself. As far as this is possible in principle, and whether it will be possible to avoid a new split into "two Chiles" (the score according to the results of the last election is 65% against 44%), it will become clear after the new government gets to work and starts the long-awaited reforms. President Gabriel Boric (also known as Chile's head of government) takes office on March 11. He has already presented the composition of the government, which is full of both iconic and compromise figures.

In short, the euphoria of victory is gradually subsiding, and the workday begins, which will determine the fate of a bold experiment - an attempt to end the neoliberal regime that led Chile to excellent macroeconomic indicators at the cost of acute inequality, which more than once brought people to the streets. The RUSSTRAT Institute asked Tomás Hirsch, a member of the Chilean Parliament and one of Pinochet's historical opponents, a member of the parliamentary commission on science and new technologies, former presidential candidate and former Chilean ambassador to New Zealand, to talk about the current situation and why it is so important for Chile to break the model that in the 1990s domestic liberals really wanted to impose on Russia. It should be noted that the interlocutors have known each other for a long time and have participated in various political projects in Chile.

- Hello, Thomas! Thank you so much for taking the time for this conversation. Russia is very interested in what is happening in Chile and Latin America today, but there is little information and not everything is clear. Let's try to explain a number of the main plots. I'll start with this. Tell me, if you had to paint a portrait of Chile on the map of humanity today, what would you highlight first?

- I don't know if we can draw a general picture of what is happening in Latin America, but if we define the historical moment that Chile is experiencing today, then this is certainly a moment of hope. With one caveat: hope is not just a big word for us, it is a concept full of meanings.

This concept is based on 30 years of expectations, demands, and unresolved problems that have been accumulating in the sphere of civil, social, cultural, ethnic, and gender relations since Augusto Pinochet left the post of head of state in 1990… Now, for the first time in 30 years, there is a real opportunity to start solving the problems that have kept the country in suspense for a very long time, to give concrete answers to the demands that brought people to the streets. So on a map of a world that is currently torn apart by contradictions, I would write the word "hope" next to Chile. I think it most accurately reflects the feelings of most Chileans.

- Since we started with hope, explain what the project of the government of Gabriel Boric is. What is the first thing to change in Chile?

- Now the first and so far only collective process of working on the text of the new constitution is underway in our history. This is done by a fully democratically elected Constitutional Convention. I would like to emphasise that this is the first time in history that this is done with the participation of indigenous peoples, and it is the first time in the modern world that gender equality is observed.

Let me remind you that this body (the Convention for the Drafting of the Constitution - RUSSTRAT) emerged as a result of the social explosion that occurred in Chile a little more than two years ago. Then millions of people took to the streets demanding “dignity" - dignity not as something specific, one-time, but as a way of life that the entire nation claims. I think that the main task of the new government is to give the Chilean people a chance to live with dignity.

Specifically, this should be reflected in a number of programs on which we have concrete proposals (Thomas Hirsch, represents the Humanist Action Party, which is part of the Worthy Chile Alliance, which in turn, together with the Broad Front alliance, forms a broad coalition of left and centre - left forces "Affirm Dignity", supporting the government of Boric - RUSSTRAT).

We need a number of measures aimed at moving from the healthcare system as a business to the healthcare system as a social guarantee. We need a system of measures to transform the education system: now education is completely built according to business schemes, but the goal is to make it a civil law with state-guaranteed quality. It is also a matter of returning to the ownership of all Chileans the country's natural resources, which are now completely in private hands, and then using them for the benefit of development under the control of society.

In short, the entire project and all the programs of the new government are aimed at changing the model in Chile that was created during the Pinochet era. Instead of "selling" itself to the world and investors as a "developed country" where real development opportunities are provided to a tiny minority, the Boric government wants to "turn" the country to the people – so that the absolute majority of Chileans can enjoy the fruits of development, economic growth, and natural resources.

- Chile was the cradle of the neoliberal model under the Pinochet dictatorship back in the 1970s, and in Russia, elements of this model were applied during the reforms of the 1990s, and with the motivation that in Chile they, they say, led to an "economic miracle". In the 1990s, the Russian Federation generally talked a lot about the “Chilean economic miracle” and Pinochet as the “saviour of democracy", and no one drew a line under these conversations. In this regard, tell me, how would you define the real results of this "miracle", what did this model give and take away from Chileans?

- This is really a very important question. It is worth considering it in more detail. Chile can be considered the launching pad of the neoliberal model, simply because it was able to be applied under a dictatorship, without the slightest possibility of resisting it or even really discussing it. I am not even talking about protests in the streets, but about a serious academic discussion - there was no discussion even among experts about the benefits and harms of using such a model.

Calling a spade a spade, the neoliberal model was forced upon us. When it brought the economy to stable growth, it began to be "sold" abroad as the so-called "Chilean economic miracle". Efforts were also made to develop the model in Chile, but not for the sake of the country where it was developed, but in order to ensure export to most of the world. I know what I'm talking about, because for many years I traveled to different countries as a representative of the Humanist Movement and explained what we called the "defeats of success".

The bottom line is as follows. The model was passed off as a completely successful one. It was emphasised that it led to economic growth, increased exports, and managed to achieve financial stability, because inflation was low - in short, all macroeconomic indicators were excellent. The problem, however, is that you won't get enough of macroeconomics. People live on a salary or pension, but it is precisely salaries and pensions that have remained very low during all the years of development of the neoliberal model in Chile. The only thing that was growing was the income gap between the rich few and the vast majority of the population.

The hidden face, the real grimace of this model, was poor pensions, which fell sharply after the general transition to the private pension fund system. Another grimace was the destruction of the state education system and the transformation of education into a business, which forced them to go into lifelong debt to educate their children. Another scandal was healthcare: it was also turned into a business, which made it the norm, for example, to make an appointment with a doctor at the place of residence for six months in advance.

Of course, all these downsides of the neoliberal model were not shown or explained to the world. And those affected, from retirees to indigenous people and parents of schoolchildren, did not have the means to travel around the world and talk about the costs. As a result, the success of the liberal model was trumpeted around the world, and many countries began to apply this experience. This, of course, led to the same unfortunate consequences.

What is the result of this model for Chile? We have become a country where income inequality is one of the highest in the world, and social rights are frozen or eliminated altogether, where a tiny, insignificant minority of the population concentrates in their hands all economic power, as well as most of the political, social and cultural power. We have become a country where cornered indigenous peoples continued to lose their lands, their territories, and their culture.

All these are the reverse sides of the system that you were given out as a miracle. The final result of its development was a social explosion in October 2019. This explosion was not an accident: it was caused not by the 30 pesos that the metro fare was raised by, but by the 30 years after Pinochet's resignation, when they talked about reforms, but did not change the model.

By and large, this explosion is the result of the neoliberal model, which became a terrible disappointment for the vast majority of Chileans, who did not even have the opportunity to declare their real situation. Today, this is a basic element of Chilean politics: overcoming the consequences of this ruthless experiment is the beginning of the work of a new government in March, designed to end the model that has caused so much harm and misery to most of my compatriots.

Another aspect. This government seeks to become feminist, Indianist, regionalist - that is, it seeks to disperse, redistribute power concentrated in one centre, in one race, in one gender. Even the composition of the government shows that it is trying to include those whose voice was unheard.

It is no coincidence that most of the new ministers are women, while its members are young, many are 30-35 years old, like the president. There are also many representatives of the regions, there are two representatives of sexual minorities who openly recognise themselves as gay and lesbian. These are serious and significant gestures for Chile, where nothing like this has ever happened before: it shows that the construction of a new project, a new model, is starting.

- You are talking about replacing the traditional vertical and changing the relations of the authorities with citizens - and on such a scale that it is difficult to remember in which other countries such changes were made and at such a level… It is impossible not to recall the tragic experience of the Government of National Unity of Salvador Allende, which also took a lot on itself. Is there no risk of repeating the tragic story, especially since the last election showed deep political polarisation? How to avoid confrontation and growing intolerance in society?

- President-elect Gabriel Boric raised this topic with one phrase that I really liked. He said: “When my mandate ends, I want the president to have less power than when I started it”. I think that explains what the government is trying to achieve.

This is important both for the institution of the presidency, which today concentrates enormous power in the country, and for the entire Chilean society. The project consists not only in limiting political power, but also in limiting the power of the State in favour of the regions, in limiting the influence of the army. We also seek to limit the power of the privileged part of society, whose well-being is built at the expense of the majority. And so, of course, you are right - all of this will affect very serious and deep interests, we will encounter large-scale resistance. But as for repeating the dramatic history of Allende, I don't think so... now is a different historical moment for Chile, for Latin America, for the United States. And for the whole world, too.

Military putschs are not necessary today. The tasks that they completed in the 20th century - to prevent the loss of power, benefits, and privileges - are completed differently today. It's just that capital is being exported to other countries, investments are being stopped, fake news campaigns are being created, and social networks are being filled with misinformation… In this sense, we are doomed to conflicts, and there will be many of them. How to proceed? We start the path to the changes I mentioned earlier with maximum openness. The government is ready to start dialogue with a variety of forces, opening the door wide for interaction.

No, we are not naive. We understand that we do not have the necessary majority in the National Congress (the legislative body of Chile, consisting of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate – RUSSTRAT). Gabriel Boric won the second round of the election by a significant margin, but we will not be able to achieve the adoption of new laws without dialogue between the opposition, at least with part of the opposition. It will be difficult, because many of our projects will have to be softened by lowering the level of expectations of voters, and this may cause disappointment on the left, especially among young people... The situation is clear: on the one hand, the right does not want to lose privileges, and on the other, the left, whose level of expectations is too high.

- Tomás, many months ago, we had a lot of arguments about the opportunities for real change that winning the election would open up. Right up to whether it's worth winning the presidential election? What do you say today? Do presidents who sincerely want the best for their peoples have a manoeuvre? Can small countries like Chile assert their independence in a world ruled by global economic and financial players?

- I often remember one phrase of Silo (an Argentine writer, founder of the theory of universal humanism – RUSSTRAT): "it is impossible to get out of here alone”. No one can solve their problems alone, not individuals, not communities, not countries. I think that in order to respond to today's challenges, it is necessary to move quickly towards Latin American integration. This is the only option.

It's not easy, but there are interesting processes. For example, it is possible that Lula will return to power in Brazil. What will happen next in Argentina? What will happen in Peru, where a president who calls himself a leftist is in power, but the situation in general is not very clear. In any case, all our countries have a chance to defend themselves in integration, and not just economic integration. We live in a globalised world, constantly dependent on what is happening in other parts of the world, so our responses should be if not global, then at least regional. This would give us a different weight than the usual floundering alone.

- What social forces in Latin America do you pin your hopes on for the future of the region?

- With those that were not previously considered as the engine of history. Women across Latin America have established themselves as a powerful historical force, and it's not just about changing the relationship between men and women; their demands go far beyond that. The broadest youth movement is visible; it marks the contours of the world that new generations dream of, including in the field of ecology. All this is the vanguard of our continent. These forces were absent from the political schemes of the 19th century, where there was no place for women, sexual diversity, youth, environmentalists, or animals. And now they are coming to the forefront of world politics.

- What is happening with Indian movements in Chile and the region?

- They are part of this vanguard and rely on broad public support, but they are still divided, fragmented, which is the result of a long colonial history. The task of Indian movements is to overcome the current differences and become part of a common movement that seeks to build a new world.

- In Russia, they pay attention to trends that are not always noticed in other parts of the world. For example, how the system - global capitalism - successfully replaces the agenda of the progressive movements you are talking about. Feminism, the struggle for the civil rights of sexual minorities, anti-racist or environmental organisations in Europe and North America often become just masks, and in this masquerade the system emasculates the elements of social struggle inherent in these movements from the very beginning. Look at the metamorphosis of the Greens in Germany.

I remember them as young romantics who rushed to Kiev after the Chernobyl disaster to help, I remember how they protested against American missiles in Europe, wanted to change the world for the better… And now their party is standing up for corporations and NATO in the heart of Europe. Does the risk of substitution of ideas and manipulation of any fighters increase as the level of education in the world falls, and the system has more and more opportunities and resources to neutralise opponents?

- This risk is always present, and we cannot turn a blind eye to it. The system you are talking about is very strong, it is not a blade of grass in the wind, and it will do everything to maintain the status quo, it has a lot of resources. But I prefer to be optimistic and think that the desire for change co-exists with this system today, and it is much deeper and broader than individual political movements, such as the German Greens, which at one time seemed to be an exception to the general rule. I think that there is a combination of many demands at different levels, and the essence of the process is the search for a new human receptivity, a kind of new frequency of perception of the world. More horizontal relationships are in demand, they reveal the relationship of various processes.

For example, in 2019, Chile experienced a social explosion, which soon reverberated in Colombia: there was also a similar explosion, and the forms of suppression of protesters by the Chilean police were copied by the Colombian police – the most brutal repression was used. You see, the system is also mutually fuelled.

Therefore, changes and progress today are not an easy task. We need not only to make social demands, but also to learn a new way of looking at life in order to understand other values, and at the same time go beyond those that the system has taught us for a long time. There is no doubt that at the moment of coming to power, these problems are becoming more acute. Here in Chile, a new generation is about to become the government in all its diversity - women, young people, representatives of social forces who have never been in power before, from housekeepers to history teachers. Of course, there is a risk of what we call the "summit virus" - there will be temptation with money and power…

- What is the "summit virus"? Now there is a lot of talk about viruses, but not everyone knows about this one...

- The "summit virus" invades those who, having reached different levels of power, begin to feel exceptional and completely forget that their coming to power is the result of other people's work and choice. Those who are affected by it lose some of their memory, stop realising that they are not more important than others just because they have become presidents, ministers or senators, because these are nothing more than functions. I think it would be very useful to inform all new members of the government about the harmful effects of this "summit virus".

By the way, the president does not need to be introduced to this: I was pleased to learn that one of the first books that Gabriel Boric read when he was elected deputy eight years ago was the book "The Summit Virus" by Laura Rodriguez, our deputy from the Humanist Party. The President often quotes it in his speeches. In general, this is a bad and harmful virus: no matter who you become, you must not forget that you are equal to other people.

- You were Ambassador to New Zealand in the early 1990s. Tell me, what was your discovery in the diplomatic field?

- The most interesting thing was to discover that Chile is a Pacific country. In Chile, we are used to looking at the United States or Europe, but we forget that in front of us is the Pacific Ocean, the Pacific Basin and its entire world. This was a big discovery for me. One of my tasks was to include Chile in various Pacific forums - so that the country would join the fight against nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific Ocean, to protect whales, and to protect Antarctica, which is very close to the Pacific region. All this required rethinking the location of Chile on the world map, a different view of the world.

There were, of course, other discoveries. In my opinion, there are still a lot of completely superfluous elements in the diplomatic norms, I would say the day before yesterday, dating back to the 18th or 19th  century. There are absurd protocols, functions that are completely unnecessary in today's world. I think that the role of embassies and the very scheme of building relations between countries should also be reviewed.

- Going back to those times, why did your party - the Humanist Party of Chile - refuse to participate in the government and leave it at the very beginning of Chile's return to democracy, when everything still looked so romantic?

- When we created the Association of Parties for Democracy and elected the first (after Pinochet's resignation in 1990 – RUSSTRAT) President, Patricio Aylwin, we were guided by universal commitments, as well as the conviction that structural changes in society were necessary. That is, not only to move from a dictatorship to a system that allows voting every 4-6 years, but also to carry out serious reforms, to do away with the Pinochet constitution, with the law on amnesty for war criminals, to return privatised enterprises to the state, to change the health care system, education, pensions and much more.

These were our obligations to the voters. We were well aware that everything would be difficult to achieve under the first transitional government, but when the program of the second government began to be discussed, around 1993, it became obvious to us that the real project of that cabinet was to preserve and deepen the neoliberal model left to us by the dictatorship.

No one was going to make structural changes, it was a question of redecorating the system, which kept its essence intact, with plans for further privatisation and the preservation of Chile's natural resources in private hands. We realised that we had nothing to do in such an office, because we were not allowed to change the general line. So we made the only honest decision - to leave the party coalition and the government of that time.

- It was an interesting moment in Chilean history, which today even in Chile is not known to everyone. Now let's change the continent. How do you see the current crisis in the heart of Europe? For the first time in many years, the Chilean press writes a lot about Russia and Ukraine – and in general on topics that are, to put it mildly, far from the country. To what extent does the current tension in Europe affect Latin America?

- Today, the world is interconnected in a way that has never been seen before in history. A small animal has brought a virus to the market of a Chinese city that we haven't even heard of, and for two years now the world has been living in a pandemic - more than five hundred million cases, millions of deaths, and no one understands what will happen next.

What happens anywhere in the world can backfire in another part of the world, and the crisis on the border of Russia and Ukraine can even become planetary. It would immediately involve the whole of Europe, then the United States, and we understand that China is unlikely to stand idly by. Strategic issues affect everyone immediately, and the current crisis around Ukraine, as it seems to me, hides the interests of large capitals associated with the global energy market.

If the situation worsens, a global economic crisis may follow, which will automatically affect countries that live off the export of raw materials, and this, of course, is of great concern in Chile. We can already see how the markets are responding to these threats. But, to be honest, it's not just the markets that matter. From the point of view of humanism, it is not the markets that are important, but the lives of people who will be at risk, and not only in the conflict zone. There are no longer borders that can be used to shut out the world, these risks affect Chile, any country, so the responsibility of the international community is definitely to find a peaceful way out.

- Tomás, what is Russia for today's Chile?

- Russia is an unfamiliar country for Chile. We had very close relations with the United States, both in a good and bad sense. Over the past 20 years, Chile has developed a priority and privileged relationship with China, which is primarily related to trade and business, but has also affected other areas, such as culture. But Russia is usually viewed with a mixture of curiosity and ignorance. Sometimes - with fear, as a country that can create problems. Therefore, I think we have an important task to show in Chile what Russia is today.

For many in Chile, Russia is almost synonymous with the Soviet Union, and most Chileans know little about the changes that have taken place in the country. At the same time, Chile is aware, for example, of the "yellow vests" movement in France, and knows how Spain overcomes the legacy of Francoism. But what is happening in Russia today, how your country relates to its past, we do not know.

The same can be said about economic and trade ties with Russia. They are much more modest than with other countries. At the same time, Chinese investment in Latin America and Chile is huge, and exports to China are now leading for a large part of Latin American countries. Not so with Russia. But to finish the argument on the positive side, I would say that this can be perceived as a task for the future.

- In what areas do you think it would be possible to develop relations between Russia and the new Chilean government?

- I think that in many areas, and first of all in scientific development, in pure science. As far as I know, Russia is a very advanced country in this field, and Chile is currently the country that invests least in science out of all the members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. I think there are real prospects for successful cooperation between our countries in this area. That's the first thing I find interesting.

The second is a possible exchange of experience and information on technologies related to minerals, how to process them in our countries before exporting, creating added value. This is an important task for both countries. Russia is a major exporter of oil, natural gas, and coal. Chile is also an exporting country, which means that both countries face the task of creating maximum added value for export products in order to stop being just exporters of raw materials.

There are other areas, such as culture, where the space for closer contact is huge. I think that if we want, we can find a lot of common ground in topics that do not depend on distances.

Interview conducted by Oleg Yasinsky