It is a well-known fact that the left is always divided, just as the right also tends to express itself in very belligerent alternatives to each other, although finally they unite and converge to participate in elections or overthrow governments.
In the past, the different party strands represented divergent ideological and programmatic positions, but now, in reality, they are essentially groupings under the tutelage of different strongmen, whose primary preoccupation is to get or stay in power.
When it was a question of fighting the dictatorship, in which the main objective was to shake off the authoritarian regime, there were already dozens of parties in Chile bent on the same thing and whose divisions, in truth, greatly delayed the democratic outcome. Thus, over the years, from the right-wing world that united behind the de facto regime, parties and leaders emerged that marked, rather, the different leaderships that began to dispute the succession to Pinochet and the military.
The governments of the Concertación, the New Majority, and the two right-wing administrations had to force themselves to reconcile positions among their supporters, and to divide the power pie between them. As soon as they arrived at La Moneda, the leaders had to serve the demands or appetites of the different expressions of the ruling party in office. That is to say, both the parties with the most votes and those with very little representation in Parliament, where the general tie between right and left obliges the heads of state to be condescending towards them. Because those with only two or three MPs are often crucial in getting laws passed, rejected, or amended.
The number of ministries, undersecretaries, governorships, embassies, and other offices serves primarily to share the governmental pie as harmoniously as possible, to give positions to all co-religionists. The same is true of the numerous parliamentary seats, so that with just a few votes everyone can be installed in the legislative branch. Incidentally, they occupy positions that are paid at least seven times more than what most Chilean workers earn.
At the same time, the political class has sought to raise the salaries of the judiciary and of military and police officers, achieving an income balance that will ward off any further attempts at insubordination. So that everyone is happy with their “public service” tasks. Also trying to equalize the income of the public administration with that of the private sector, so that managers are not tempted by politics.
It is not ideas and government programs that drive the political debate. If we look at the last few years, the truth is that the controversies have been marked by personal ambitions and power struggles. Not even the traditional parties of the self-styled left maintain their ideological profile, so that being socialist, social Christian, communist, PPD, for example, no longer indicates anything about the purposes of those who ascribe to these denominations. In the same way that Pinochetism hatched in parties that very weakly could boast the conservatism and liberalism of yesteryear expressions such as the Independent Democratic Union, National Renewal, and the Republican Party often mean exactly the opposite of what their names or acronyms indicate. Likewise, if the colors red, blue, or black reaffirmed the character of those who carried them on their flags and banners, today we see that yellow, orange, and others make up the chromatic diversity of the Chilean political spectrum.
In addition, corruption scandals, embezzlement, bribery, and other malpractices that allow politicians to enrich themselves illicitly have had much to do with the corporate defense of the political class when confronted with allegations.
The two recently aborted constitutional experiences attempted a reduction in the number of parties. The idea was that the number of voters or the number of elected deputies would mark their electoral solvency, decreeing the dissolution of those that did not reach a minimum number of votes. It was estimated that at least fifteen or twenty parties would be obliged to dissolve or join the most popular collectives, among the more than 35 registered in the Electoral Service or the process of formation.
Without a new Constitution, we already know that we will continue to be governed by the 1980 Constitution dictated by Pinochet and later amended somewhat. Thus, it would now have to be the current authorities in La Moneda and the legislature to agree on an electoral reform that would curb and reduce the excessive proliferation of parties that, as many say, barely represent “political sensitivities”.
A purpose that could greatly simplify the institutional bureaucracy and the bloated fiscal expenditure to finance those who often hold office for four years or more without even being known to the public. But this reform will now be little short of an impossible task if those who would have to legislate on the matter are part of the parties and movements entrenched in state institutions. They are, of course, profiting from the resources of all Chileans. It is well known that, concerning our population, we have an inordinate number of representatives, just as their stipends are very high if compared to what politicians in the richest countries on Earth receive.
