Money and Politics

Today in Chile is is practically impossible to know who is financing whom in politics. For this reason a group of (mostly) prominent academics and politicians are circulating a petition demanding that the laws governing campaign and party financing be modernized, allowing for greater transparency.

If you live in Chile and wish to sign, here's the link.

FINANCIAMIENTO DE LA POLITICA EN CHILE  

En Chile, los vínculos del dinero y el poder económico con el poder político constituyen una amenaza para la creación de políticas públicas que promuevan el interés general. La legislación actual es insuficiente para evitar que intereses particulares presionen a la autoridad ejecutiva y legislativa, a través de donaciones a campañas políticas, lobby sin regulación, financiamiento de los partidos, y conflictos de interés de las propias autoridades. 

Es urgente transparentar más y mejor la relación entre política y dinero en Chile. En la actualidad no conocemos quienes financian las campañas electorales ni los partidos políticos, por lo cual la ciudadanía no tiene información para evaluar si sus representantes son cooptados por grupos de interés o actúan promoviendo el bien común. 

Es urgente transparentar quiénes financian las campañas y los partidos. Como quienes votan son los ciudadanos, los financistas privados de la política deben ser exclusivamente personas naturales. El Estado debe proveer un financiamiento público transparente y auditable. 

Los abajo firmantes solicitamos al Gobierno y al Congreso Nacional que en materia de reformas políticas se incluya el financiamiento de la política como un eje primordial para fortalecer la confianza de los ciudadanos con nuestras autoridades. 

Concretamente, proponemos: 

1.- Aprobar una ley que regule, sin excepción, a todos aquellos que representan intereses privados frente a los poderes públicos, registrando las reuniones que realizan las autoridades con grupos de interés. 

2.- Transparentar absolutamente los orígenes del dinero privado que financia las campañas electorales, permitiendo que la ciudadanía pueda conocer esos orígenes y exigiendo que las autoridades se inhabiliten de participar en el proceso de toma de decisiones cuando exista un conflicto de interés por este motivo. 

3.- Aumentar de manera importante el financiamiento público de los partidos y campañas políticas, de manera transparente, con auditorias que impidan el uso de los fondos públicos por parte del gobierno para favorecer a candidatos y partidos de su coalición. 

4.- Crear una institución autónoma, a similitud de lo que hoy es el Consejo para la Transparencia, que cuente con los recursos y atribuciones necesarias para fiscalizar el cumplimiento de la ley y monitorear los gastos durante las campañas. 

5.- Introducir multas y penalidades más altas y efectivas para quienes debiendo declarar su patrimonio o conflictos de interés, no lo hagan y reglas más comprensivas y detalladas para alcanzar la máxima claridad y transparencia en ellas. Lo mismo para candidatos que vulneren la ley en materia de topes al gasto electoral, u origen de los aportes a sus campañas. 

Sin una reforma profunda en materia de financiamiento de la política y regulación del lobby, nuestras políticas públicas seguirán debilitándose, y aumentará el rechazo de la ciudadanía hacia las instituciones y el poder político. 

FIRMAN:Ximena Abogabir, Manuel Agosín, Claudio Agostini, Matías Asún Hamel, Pepe Auth, Mariana Aylwin, Jaime Baeza, Cristóbal Bellolio, José Miguel Benavente, Eduardo Bitrán, Vivianne Blanlot, Jorge Bofill, Sebastián Bowen, José Joaquín Brunner, Álvaro Bustos, Edmundo Bustos, Víctor Caro, Pamela Caro, Lidia Casas, Jaime Casassus, Luis Felipe Céspedes, Dante Contreras, Jorge Correa, Jaime Couso, Javier Couso, Miguel Crispi, Genaro Cuadros, Fernando Dazarola, Gabriel De La Fuente, Gloria De La Fuente, Juan Carlos Délano, Antonio Delfau, Alejandro del Pino, Adriana Delpiano, Francisco Díaz, Marcelo Díaz, Norberto Díaz, Eduardo Dockendorf, Jorge Dominguez, Nicolás Dormal, Marcelo Drago, Mauricio Duce, Rodrigo Echecopar, Gregory Elacqua, Álvaro Elizalde, Eduardo Engel, Luis Eduardo Escobar, Cristina Escudero, Alejandro Ferreiro, Ricardo Ffrench-Davis, Claudio Fuentes, Robert Funk, Eugenio Figueroa, Francisco Gallego, Cristóbal García, Ana María Gazmuri, Pedro Glatz, Andrés Gómez-Lobo, Nicolás Grau, Davor Harasic, Felipe Heusser, Daniel Hojman, Carlos Huneeus, Cristóbal Huneeus, Federico Huneeus, Sebastián Iglesias Sichel, Giorgio Jackson, Alfredo Joignant, Ricardo Lagos-Weber, Oscar Landerretche, Fernando Larraín, Guillermo Larraín, Sara Larraín, Hugo Lavados, Diego Luna, Francisca Márquez, Jorge Marshall, Pablo Marshall, Patricio Meller, Alejandro Micco, Sergio Micco, Davor Mimica, Alejandra Mizala, Jorge Navarrete, Patricio Navia, Marco Antonio Núñez, Claudio Orrego, Ernesto Ottone, Sebastián Pavlovic, Guillermo Pickering, Patricia Politzer, Karen Poniachik, Carlos Portales, Andrea Repetto, Marcela Ríos, Jorge Rivera, Ximena Rincón, Patricio Rodrigo, Pilar Romaguera, Andrés Romero, Fulvio Rossi, Guillermo Scallan, Ricardo Solari, Juan José Soto, Agustín Squella, José Tessada, Carolina Tohá, Marcelo Tokman, Juan Pablo Torres-Martínez, Juan Trimboli, Teresa Valdez, Juan Enrique Vargas, Andrés Velasco, Eugenio Vergara, Mario Waissbluth, Andrés Zahler, Roberto Zahler, José Zalaquett.

Rodrigo Alvarez leaves

Another minister has resigned from the Piñera cabinet. This resignation was unusual in that the president was out of the country when it happened. Reports are that Piñera asked the outgoing energy minister to await his return to discuss Alvarez' complaints, but Alvarez was unwilling. Following the resignation, Alvarez gave an astonishing press conference, in which he complained that he was given a set of instructions on how to deal with the uprising in Aysén, and the government changed those rules in order to reach an agreement, leaving him completely out of the loop.


Here are some further thoughts on the resignation and what it means for Piñera, published today in El Dínamo:

Es normal que en un gobierno que dura cuatro años haya ministros que vengan y ministros que van. Lo curioso de este gobierno en particular es que las personas que han dejado sus cargos generalmente lo han hecho por voluntad propia. El presidente se ha mostrado reacio a echar a miembros de su gabinete. Es posible que él vea la integridad del equipo como una señal de la salud de su gobierno, y las partidas como una muestra de debilidad. La renuncia voluntaria de un ministro más representa un golpe fuerte. Pero este ministro no es cualquiera. 

Rodrigo Álvarez goza de altos niveles de popularidad entre sus colegas y es bien visto por el público. Miembro de la UDI, su partida ha reabierto una herida latente ya que ese partido se siente víctima y marginado del centro del poder. Las palabras del ministro saliente dejaron en claro su decepción y sospechas de que alguien le hizo la cama, y que, para colmo, se la hicieron mientras el presidente andaba de gira en el exterior. Todo esto deja una impresión de desorden que le hace daño al gobierno y a la política en general.

Si la oposición cree que sacará ventaja del ocurrido, se equivoca. Estos casos solo sirven para confirmar el desapego de la política y los políticos. Los ciudadanos esperan que los ministros renuncien – o que sean despedidos, lo que en la política muchas veces es prácticamente lo mismo – por razones de incumplimiento o ineptitud. No evaluará bien la partida de un hombre honesto y competente por haberse sentido excluido de un momento clave, y mirará con repugnancia el ciclo de acusaciones y recriminaciones que sigue. 

Tal vez lo más preocupante es que la historia se repite. Primero, en el sentido en que el gobierno transforma un triunfo (acuerdo en Aysén, rescate de los mineros) en una derrota para la opinión pública (salida de Álvarez, salida de Bielsa). Es un error comunicacional que contribuye directamente a los bajos niveles de aprobación. 

Segundo, hay un patrón de buenos ministros que parten del gabinete por razones perfectamente evitables. Con los ministros Fontaine y Bulnes, el gobierno comenzó a perder a los mejores, personajes que lo hacían bien, que eran bien preparados, pero que se sintieron víctimas de las operaciones políticas de la Moneda. Hoy muchos culpan al ministro del Interior, pero se equivocan. Esto no ha sido el duelo de los Rodrigos. Es un patrón de conducta, basado en el hecho que éste es el gobierno del presidente Piñera, no de una coalición de dos partidos. Frente a ese tipo de liderazgo, no hay cuoteo que aguante. 

Ahí radica una diferencia importante con la Concertación. Por todo lo feo que era el cuoteo político,  éste permitió construir un proyecto, involucró a los socios de la coalición de manera que incluso hoy, después de una dura derrota y un difícil período de ajuste, sigue habiendo algo que se llama Concertación, con identidad propia. Como contraste, este gobierno buscó su identidad en una nueva forma de gobernar, en que la eficiencia impuesta por ‘los mejores’ traería su propia recompensa. Pero los mejores se están yendo, y al hacerlo dejan en evidencia un proceso de toma de decisiones que pone en cuestión la eficiencia. No hay ni eficiencia, y los mejores se van.

The leader of the Aysén movement talks

Ivan Fuentes is the leader of the movement which has emerged in the extreme south of Chile. He has proven to be an adept spokesman and negotiator and has earned the admiration even of government ministers. Here is a clip of how he expresses himself, simply, intelligently, slightly longwindedly. But the student movement would have benefitted from having a spokesman with this degree of cohesiveness and humility.

The best line: "There should be a law which punishes political ineptitude."

Elections in Mexico and Venezuela

Francisco Diaz and I have written a piece for Policy Network on the two important elections coming up in Latin America.


I will try something new for this blog, and in addition to linking to the original, I am including the entire text here, for easy reading.


here goes

The Big Latin American Elections of 2012

There are years in which the electoral stars seem to align, where a series of elections bring with them the capacity to revamp the political map. This is not one of those years. However, two Latin American countries will hold elections that have the potential to alter the regional landscape. 
Together with Brazil, both Mexico and Venezuela are amongst the most politically and economically relevant countries in the region. Each, at different times in their history, have sought to play the role of regional leader, and each have a natural resource – petroleum – which makes them key economic players and important trading partners for the United States. In recent years, however, Mexico and Venezuela have chosen different paths towards development. The upcoming presidential elections will place those paths to the test, or at least to the ballot.
In Mexico, the ruling right wing PAN will be represented by Josefina Vasquez Mota. In a country where politics remains strongly dominated by men, the female candidate has a certain appeal, but also very real challenges. Not least of these is that her party has ruled Mexico in the decade during which it has descended into drug cartel-fuelled violence. One of the ways in which the PAN is attempting to divert attention from its disastrous record on security is to remind voters of the corruption under the PRI, which ruled the country as a quasi one party state for much of the twentieth century. However, the PRI’s candidate, Enrique Peña Nieto, is clearly leading the polls (casting around 50%, over 20% Vásquez). Peña has been able to present a politically centrist position which is enhanced by his good communication skills.   
Where does this leave the leftist PRD? Pretty much where it was after the 2009 presidential elections; divided between those who desire a forward-looking, modern social democracy on the one hand, and the firebrand leader, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO), who has barely got over his razor-thin electoral defeat last time around. AMLO ranks third in every poll, almost 5% below PAN.
If AMLO’s performance is somehow beholden to his past record, the same can be said, only more so, for Venezuela’s opposition, which will face Hugo Chavez in presidential elections in October. Since Chavez came to power he has faced virtually no organised opposition, thanks in part to his own institutional reengineering, but in large measure to the opposition’s internal division and ineptitude. With the selection in February of Henrique Capriles Radonski as its candidate, it appears the opposition has finally got its act together. Not only will Capriles represent a united opposition, he also presents a very different face of the sector. Unlike previous opposition to Chavez, which was tied to traditional parties and interests, Capriles represents a young, modern kind of social democratic vision much more along the lines of a Lula or Lagos. He has actually said that he wants to emulate the Chilean centre-left coalition, the Concertacion. It is a vision that veers away from a state-dominated economy but also seeks an active role for the state in the provision of public services such as health care. All the while, there is an awareness that Venezuela’s runaway public spending will have to be tackled. Chavez still leads in the polls, by a 15-18% margin, but Capriles is campaigning hard. It seems that these will be the first highly contested elections since Chavez came to power in 1998.
Both the Mexican and Venezuelan cases present real challenges for social democracy in general, and for possibilities of electoral success. For much of the past decade the centre-left in these countries has found it difficult to gain a firm footing in shifting political sands. However the elections taking place this year also offer the opportunity to reconstruct a disarticulated left, away from demagoguery and towards a forward looking and healthy social democracy which seeks economic growth but also emphasises well and responsibly funded social policy, all within the context of a vibrant democracy.

Rebellion in Aysén

This is a striking picture (please excuse the pun). Part Mad Max and part Bravehart. I cannot vouch for its authenticity, but it is apparently a group of armed protesters in Aysén. After more than a month of protests and a harsh government reaction, there is no sign that the unrest is receding. Judging by this picture, on the contrary. The Piñera government is counting on winter arriving fast and protesters getting cold and tired and hungry, which was their strategy with the student demonstrations last year. Surprising that they have chosen the same approach.

A Chilean movie, not about politics (or is it?)

Patricio Guzmán is known for political documentaries. Nostalgia de la luz seems to be about astronomy. Figure it out yourself. It's worth watching, if only for the cinematography.

The MBA president

There has long been a debate in Latin America about the role of technocrats in politics, and not just in Chile (check out Centeno's classic work on Mexico). Unlike Mexico, however, in Chile these foreign-trained number-crunchers remained in the background, or at best, took on ministerial positions in things like Finance.

The current Chilean president is not only a technocrat, but also a businessman, and since he has come to office, much has been said about the tensions that exist between talents, skills and instincts that are required in politics versus those required in business.

As I say in this column, this debate is part of a deeper one about the role of ideology in politics, and especially within the parties of the right, and it is a debate that, with a businessman candidate leading the race, the Republican Party in the United States is going through as well.

Decentralization

The continuing conflict in the far south of Chile is but the latest example of the costs of excessive centralizations of the Chilean state. In this La Segunda column, I argue that the issues themselves are secondary to the primary problem, which is the lack of effective representation of different groups in the Chilean system. This goes for everyone from students, marginalized groups and the poor, and the many people who live outside of Santiago, and especially in the extreme north and south. The solution, then, is not negotiating the price of fuel, but a broader and deeper reconsideration of our modes of representation, from the electoral system to our hyperpresidentialisms to decentralization, if not federalism.