Two souls had the speech of senator PPD Guido Girardi, who, although he voted in favor of the impeachment of President Sebastián Piñera, also admitted that yesterday was one of the most difficult votes that he has had.
For some legislators, he was one of the articulators of the alignment that the opposition bloc had.
Although he admits that there are tensions in his sector, after votes such as the rejection of the fourth pension withdrawal or the approval of the extension for a State of Constitutional Exception in the south, he believes that the opposition order behind the accusation was an advance.
He explains that in these internal deliberations everyone gave in and that his vote in favor is due to questions about how the Dominga mining project was processed in a heritage area from an environmental point of view. “It is as if Peru allowed a mining company in Machu Picchu and I wanted to assume the voice of those who have no voice, such as fishermen, dolphins, whales, that heritage for the future of humanity,” he said.
You said that it was not easy to accuse a President, because precedents are generated and it brings consequences. In what sense?
At a time when the democratic institutionality is questioned, if you add a constitutional accusation to that, it is an additional element. There is a problem worldwide, there is a multi-crisis. There is a disintermediation that the digital age is generating, there is an anachronism and obsolescence of the entire institutional chassis of the 20th century with this world that is emerging at another speed, it is another civilization with artificial intelligence. If you add climate change and a technology beyond human control, no human brain is capable of processing the current immensity of data, we are in a multi-crisis. I believe in the system, where people were elected democratically, beyond not sharing the vision that President Piñera had, and an accusation is a very exceptional instrument and of the last frontier, obviously it was not easy for me so means, by the precedents.
Were those doubts in the deliberation of the opposition bloc?
A good opposition debate was generated, at least in the Senate, where support for the accusation was not automatic, it was the product of an agreement on how to articulate an opposition that for a long time was not capable of having unitary positions. When an opposition does not have unitary positions, it is an irrelevant opposition.
For some, regardless of whether this agreement was reached, it generated tensions and differences that were difficult to resolve, even more so with what happened last week …
The other way around, it is a step. Indeed, relations were very deteriorated last week, in which I was not (N. de la R .: I participated in COP26), but the milestone that has been built I see as an advance compared to last week, although not I think the situation is ideal. Now several of us had to give in for that agreement to be reached.
Although in the past Yasna Provoste was a unifying leadership of the opposition in the Senate, which was what catapulted her in the polls, don’t you think that what was experienced is a demonstration that she stopped being that unifying factor? Do you share that diagnosis that some senators transmit privately?
No, because what happened yesterday was the opposite. It was a demonstration of the ability of the opposition, which supports Yasna Provoste, to generate a shared vision and a governance response to a very complex issue. It was essential that a common opinion be generated and translated into a vote. For Yasna it is very important to give guarantees to the country that in the event that she is President, she will have a coalition behind with a common vision. What happened yesterday was that. Although there were different opinions, there was a unitary vote.
You have been one of the senators who have promoted dialogue with the government, Provoste did too. As a counterpart, the government has made gestures towards you and has supported your initiatives, such as the Council of the Future and the Congress of the Future. Did those factors complicate your decision to support the libel?
I think they are independent things. The opposition and the government have to work together where there is agreement. What we have done is a therapy and one of the few spaces for strategic thinking that we have, transversal, about the future of the country, are the Council of the Future and the Congress of the Future. They are spaces that articulate to the right and to the left. If you look at the debates there has been no discussion about science or, for example, artificial intelligence. The future does not exist. We are hostages of immediacy.
But don’t you think that the government and the President can feel with you, that even supporting these transversal and strategic initiatives, you vote in favor of the accusation?
The constitutional accusation is nothing more than a reflection of something that is happening globally with the digital age, the fight for data. And the problem with social media is that the content of a flat Earther is worth the same as the content of a Nobel Prize. Because what is disseminated on social networks is this extreme, polarizing and hateful content. This accusation has to do with this logic.
For this reason, I asked him about this feeling that remains in the government.
It is part of politics. We try to generate a process of dialogue on central and strategic issues, and in the end presentism and immediacy end up winning.
Said everyone gave in, what did you give in? Was he in favor of abstaining?
I was about to have a more in-depth discussion about the meaning of a constitutional accusation, but obviously I put my vote at the disposal… and I think a deep debate was held in the opposition.
Regarding the leadership of Yasna Provoste, do you agree with Senator Huenchumilla that “hope is the last thing you lose”?
We are living in a liquid world. Months ago, Pamela Jiles was top rated. Then it was Jadue, Sichel, Boric and now Kast. We live in uncertainty and human brains need certainties, that is why religion and states exist. Therefore, in this uncertainty, this choice is completely open. Who would have thought that Gabriel was going to beat Jadue. The election is open. The last word is not written. The only thing that is clear to me is that I am not going to vote for the right. I hope that Yasna Provoste wins and goes to the second round, but if it is not her, I will not hesitate to support whoever competes with Kast’s option. And today the person who can best face Kast is Yasna Provoste.
But if Boric passes and then wins, they have evaluated how the collaboration with an eventual government of him will be. From the Broad Front and the PC they despised an alliance that included the PPD.
For me there are democratic and higher principles. I think Kast represents the return to a silent dictatorship. Obviously in the face of Kast’s option, he would support Boric without any doubt, without any conditions. There is a cleavage between principles. Dictatorship or democracy. Oppression or freedom. Violation of human rights or respect for human rights. I don’t have a second of doubts about what I would do.
We would like to say thanks to the writer of this article for this outstanding web content
Guido Girardi (PPD): “Opposition support for the accusation of Piñera was not automatic” – La Tercera