Just before Chile lives its second ratifying vote on the Constitution, we talk to Efren Osorio, Secretary General of the Humanist Action party. Efren welcomes us in his office and smiles when we mention how accurate his political and electoral analyses have been, including the last conventional election last May, when he projected with great precision the overwhelming triumph of the ultra-right and that the government coalitions would not reach the minimum quorum of 21 councillors, “I have become the doomsayer of defeats”, he responds with humour. Efren has been a persistent builder of roots (what today is known as “territories”), with a humanist and Siloist stamp. He has done this in communes such as San Bernardo and lately, he has dedicated himself to supporting similar processes in which new generations of humanists are trying to replicate similar experiences in other geographical locations. And that is one of its central themes: the importance of territorial work for the forces of the left and progressives.

How do you see Sunday’s election in the light of the current Latin American context, the conservative advance and the election of Milei in Argentina?

We have to remember that the Chilean left and progressivism come from two very strong, very big electoral defeats, which put a brake on the whole process of transformations that had been developing after the social outpouring of October 2019, and the worst thing is that these defeats were not with the traditional right but with the ultra-right. If we add to this the Latin American context, where Milei has just won overwhelmingly, it shows a Latin American and global trend. We have the advance of the far right in Italy, in Spain, Trump who continues to advance with great force in the USA, Bukele in El Salvador, and Turkey, so it is a complex global context that in my opinion stems from two major crises, the crisis of neoliberalism and the crisis of social democracy. The void left by these two crises, which the left was unable to fill, has provided the opportunity for the emergence of the far right. There is a lot of evaluation and self-criticism to be made here. I don’t like it when the defeats are blamed on the right-wing press, we know that the right-wing press will always lie, and therefore it is a fact of the cause. The point is how the left and progressives manage to overcome such lies how we manage to generate confidence in the popular sectors, how we manage to recover credibility, and here we have to ask ourselves in terms of what is happening with social urgencies and if the discourse and actions of the governments and parties of the left are in tune with such urgencies, what is happening in some parties of the left that appear linked to corruption, which has been very harmful to transformative projects. So, the popular sectors and the precarious middle classes are waiting for concrete solutions to their daily urgencies and we on the left have not been able to provide them.

Now, we hope that this Sunday the “Against” will triumph, rejecting the proposed constitution drafted by the ultra-right here in Chile, which is disastrous, worse than the one made by Pinochet. But the outcome is very uncertain because, during the last few days, the attacks have been fierce, in a real lawfare operation, the public prosecutor’s office has activated a corruption case where regrettable links appear with an important government party and the hegemonic press has had a real feast with the news. If this ultraconservative constitutional text is approved, it will be a knock-out defeat for Chile’s democratic sectors, much worse than Milei’s triumph in Argentina. On the other hand, an eventual triumph of the “En Contra” rejecting the constitutional proposal, would be a defeat for the right and the ultra-right but not necessarily a triumph for the left, it would only be a small respite, not even a stop at the bend of the river, not even enough for that, It would only be a small respite within a tsunami that is engulfing us and that would allow us for a few moments to remove it, so we must take advantage of this transitory breath of air to reconstitute ourselves and regain strength, but it would be a new error to think that a good result in the vote is a triumph for the democratic forces.

In this self-criticism, can we say that the left has failed in its attempts?

Yes, there has been a failure and it must be acknowledged. The only way to make amends is to accept the failures. And I believe that the political left and also the social left failed. We failed, I would speak in the first person plural, and we failed because, in my opinion, the diagnosis we made of the social outburst of October 2019 and in the light of what happened after, was wrong. We were wrong and we thought that this unrest, this anger that was expressed so strongly in the streets, in a largely non-violent way, we thought that this anger was the expression of a moment close to a pre-revolutionary moment, a critique and an overcoming of the neoliberal model. But in reality, people were tired of the abuses and privileges of a few, but not necessarily of the model. This model has permeated even the cultural substratum of our people and we have to accept it, and from there begin to change that substratum. There is plenty of evidence of this, for example, the defence of subsidised schools by the popular sectors and the precarious middle classes. On the issue of pensions, the right-wing campaign “Not with my little money!” as a defence of individual contributions over a solidarity-based pay-as-you-go pension system was very strong. In short, I believe that the social and political left must accept the failure and from there begin the reconstruction of a project of the popular left. And this failure is related to the great disconnection between the left and the popular sectors. The popular sectors are abandoned, we are not rooted, no party or even the so-called social movements have a truly popular character. In the old days, in every working-class neighbourhood you would find headquarters, cells or bases of the left parties and a chapel with a working-class priest preaching. And now we see that in the popular sectors, there are no left-wing parties, but we find the evangelical pastor, often linked to the discourse of the ultra-right, we also find the narco who gives a certain “protection” and the TV news programmes that manipulate by entering the bedroom of the popular sectors. But the left and progressives are not there, we are not part of the popular world, and when there are left-wing mayors and/or councillors then we find a work that is more clientelist, far removed from a project of territorial empowerment. And here there is a self-criticism that needs to be made with great force. I think there is a problem and that is that the left and progressivism have become a left without people and a left without people is condemned to fail.

Efrén, for our Latin American readers, how do you explain that Chile, in barely four years, has gone from the possibility of profound changes to discussing a constitution worse than Pinochet’s?

The only way to answer this is to go back to October 2019, as I said before, there is a misdiagnosis, the left and progressivism, we thought that people wanted a root change of the model and in reality they were just tired of abuses and privileges. To put it in “Orteguian” terms, the great anger that was expressed was against the abuses but not against the uses of the neoliberal model. This confusion or misdiagnosis led to a certain drunkenness in some political and social sectors, a drunkenness with the outbreak, some thought they were in Chiapas and already believed they were Subcomandante Marcos. If it is true that the majority of the movement was non-violent, there were also excesses and a kind of romanticisation of violence, looting not only of supermarket chains but also of small businesses that traumatised many people, not only from the middle class but also from the popular sectors. Looting was often induced or tolerated by the police forces because they knew very well that this would scare off many people. So, in my opinion, there was a misdiagnosis and a certain intoxication by the social outburst, in October 2019 was very powerful, and very strong, but we attributed an ideological stamp to it, which in light of what happened after, was wrong.

Acción Humanista is part of President Boric’s government. After the vote this Sunday, will you continue to support President Boric’s government, why?

In this context of the advance of the far-right, we believe that an eventual failure of the current government would be the gateway to the far-right. To put it more graphically: for the second round of the 2000 presidential elections, between Lagos and Lavín, we were activists of the null vote because we understood that both candidates were part of a democracy, limited, restricted, liberal or bourgeois if you want to call it something else, but finally part of a democracy. But in the case of the ultra-right, it has absolutely no democratic stamp, on the contrary, they use democracy to come to power and never let go again. So, we will continue to support this government, but I think it is imperative to raise the volume of the humanist voice. Certain situations are becoming intolerable: the forgetfulness with the environmental agenda or the student debt, to mention a couple. Some issues were strategic, for various reasons, justified or not, have been postponed and this government has to be able to come out with great force, giving clear signals in that direction, stressing that if progress is not made it is a product of the right, but the will to move forward has to be seen and that is where, in my opinion, greater complicity with the social world has been lacking. A large part of the government’s action is dedicated to the piracy of votes in parliament. In a parliament where we are in the minority and the only way to change this correlation of forces is through popular pressure, sometimes it seems that the government cares more about the headline in El Mercurio than the opinion of the people who supported us. On the other hand, the government’s communication policy should be reviewed, because it has not been able to show what has been done, which is quite a lot. We will continue in this government, but I think that we humanists have to start speaking out more loudly, not because of the little ‘chimuchina’ or the nonsense of one more or one less charge, but because of the issues that hurt people.

How can the arrival of the far right be avoided?

Our look is that the ultra-right has to be stopped with a lot of convergence of the left and progressive sectors. But that unity, that convergence has to be around profound transformations that change people’s daily lives. That is to say, that people can make ends meet, that people can educate their children well, that people can look after their parents, and that every worker knows that by working honestly, they will have a more or less decent retirement. These are four simple things, but in terms of public policy, they are very complex. But if people see us committed and working in that direction and not in compromises with the right or linked to corruption, we will be able to move forward, otherwise, the truth is that it is very difficult. So the challenge for us as a coalition of the left and the government is how to win the hearts of the people and how to regain hope. The dispute has to do precisely with that hope that people have been losing and we have to take it on board. That hope was with this government, and after a short time, due to various mistakes, that hope was frustrated. And there is nothing worse than frustrated people, so we have to be sincerely self-critical and clearly show our vocation for change. And that has nothing to do with saying what the elite likes, it has to do with a real commitment to the most urgent needs of the people. The left sees itself in small and ridiculous disputes in parliament, far removed from territorial roots. So the popular sectors don’t see us as allies, they don’t see us as tools for change, they see us as very distant because they see us discussing in political terms and not in terms of roots. People have to see that there is a sincere and profound commitment to overcoming their daily difficulties. In short, the left needs more roots and less parliament. As our former deputy Laura Rodríguez said: “With your back to parliament and your face to the people”.

Regarding the frustration you speak of, we know that along with frustration comes resentment. Do you think it is possible to get out, that we have not yet entered the phase of people’s resentment? And if we are in the resentment phase, is it possible to get out of it with signs like you mention?

I think we are in a very close phase, if we are not already in such a phase. You go to the popular sectors and there is a lot of anger, there is a strong anger. Humanists say that when you make a mistake you have to make double reparations. And I believe that this government and all of us have made mistakes and we have to make double reparations. And that means, one, that the political sectors of the left, the political parties, must regain their roots. Let’s get back to work on that anonymous, humble and heartfelt work, which does not appear on the television cameras, but which is tremendously important for rebuilding the social fabric. That phrase so old that it even seems like a cliché, but which has tremendous profundity. Second, we have to be able to show a goal and an objective for the short term. We cannot be offering only long-term dreams, we would also have to show very concrete issues in the short and medium term. And thirdly, after the above, we have to be capable, as García Linera says in Bolivia, of disputing hope, we have to go out and dispute the future. We humanists know that when the future is closed, when there is no future, violence emerges with great force. So, as long as we are not capable of opening up the future, that people know that by working honestly they will be able to educate their children and live their old age in peace, as long as we are not capable of guaranteeing this, we are going to have people looking for messiahs on one side or the other, because people are so desperate that they are looking for solutions for now and not for the day after tomorrow.

Finally, Efren, for Acción Humanista as a political organisation, what are its main challenges in the coming electoral cycle?

We have to legalise ourselves in 6 or 7 regions so that we can face the municipal elections in a good way and elect mayors, councillors and later parliamentarians. An eventual victory in the vote will be just a breath of air in a wave that is still dragging us down and could submerge us again. If we take this breath of air well and take it to the depths of our hearts, we can think of a different future. But we cannot fall into the drunkenness of triumph, or that we have made no mistakes here and that all the blame lies on the one hand with the political parties or the social movements or the right-wing media. Failure belongs to all of us, but it is not a guilty failure, nor is it a failure that leads us to pass the buck to each other. Failure, in the humanist sense, is liberating and inspiring because it allows us to break with that macabre endless loop of “repetition”, of Nietzsche’s eternal return, to abandon that Sisyphus eternally condemned by the gods to climb the rock to the top of the mountain, only to fall and then climb back up again and again. It is not the best time for Chile, Latin America or Humanity, it is a very critical moment, where civilisational advances that have taken decades and centuries of struggle are beginning to be questioned, where the life of all living species is threatened by climate change, where even the new wars no longer respect even the rules of the old wars and horrify us, where criminal gangs capture cities and even entire countries and the more violence dominates, the more humanism becomes necessary. The world needs humanism, and it is from this profound and sincere need, which goes far beyond petty politics, that we humanists must seek inspiration for it to carry forward our political action.