Chile: what the 36-year-old president wants to change in the country

As Novye Izvestia has already reported, Chile is celebrating the presidential victory of 35-year-old Gabriel Borich, candidate of the left-wing coalition I Approve Dignity. The victory was so impressive that people took to the streets without waiting for the vote count to be completed. Eyewitnesses testify: the whole country is again on the streets - cars are buzzing, people are dancing, waving flags, and when asked: -What are you celebrating? answer: - Freedom, democracy, education, medicine, pensions...

The well-known Russian sociologist Dmitry Zakotyansky explains in his blog why the Chileans are so enthusiastic:

“President at the age of 35, born in 1986

Mobility of a "healthy person" (not a "smoker"): student activist, president of the student federation, one of the leaders of student protests, a deputy from a small outlying region with less than 200 thousand people who won with 26% of the vote. (it's like we have a self-nominated candidate for the Duma from Magadan), he was also involved in the commissions on human rights and indigenous peoples and on labor and social security, then another term as a deputy, joined the party, the party united with similar left-liberal parties in a coalition, won in the second round in the internal elections of this coalition, then he was nominated for the presidency and 55% in the country's elections, and that's it. Amazing.

And, after all, once it was believed in our country that South America is the land of permanent dictatorships, and we are such a "developed" country, proudly playing with countries on the world map. Which now lagged behind the bulk of South American countries in terms of institutional development, and economically became poorer than Chile, Argentina, Uruguay (even richer in terms of PPP, but the gap is small).

And now, here, in Chile, with all their long-suffering history of dictatorships and usurpations, a completely anti-social state, a young president is in power with plans (I specially reread his program):

- to introduce free education (with its availability in the country it is very bad);

- to make preschool education accessible, to raise taxes on the rich (Pinochet's legacy is an inconceivable level of inequality that has never been reduced, and the rich and corporations still have a million ways to legally avoid or pay taxes)

- legalize abortion, increase funding for childcare benefits and make more accessible female employment and reconciliation of family and work;

- introduce a new pension system (basic guaranteed pension similar to New Zealand + accounting for unpaid work and care for retirement experience + increased digital literacy and telemedicine);

- to expand the rights of workers, which they can defend against the employer;

- to expand the capabilities of local self-government and create new horizontal ties in it;

- increase budgetary and tax transparency;

- to increase civilian control over the police;

- improve conditions and reduce violations in prisons;

- a separate focus on domestic violence and violence against women;

- a new ministry for women and gender equality ("A Feminist Government") and the recognition of non-traditional gender identities, a strong emphasis on inclusiveness;

- a new law against violence of all forms against children, new and inclusive school curricula against gender stereotypes;

- a huge emphasis on human rights, the prevention of their violations, the introduction of human rights education, the development of places of remembrance of human rights violations;

- and a lot of other things and each bloc in great detail, I pulled out only in thesis (of course, this still needs to be pushed through parliament, but with the new majority among the centrists and the left, this does not look unsolvable).

It seems to me that it is impossible to even dream of a better president. Just an absolute combo of everything that is most adequate, advanced, progressive and necessary.

While the so-called. the "right" from these results typically spits in the spirit of "fu, leftist", this all only shows even more how ideological delimitation and polarization occurs in modern developed countries: conservative-patriarchal-reactionary ideologies have de facto merged with the "right" side political spectrum, while the modern so-called. the "left" side has come to be a fusion of advocates of freedom, emancipation, humanism, empowerment, gender equality, inclusiveness, tolerance, basic human rights and opportunities for women and children. In Russia, the "communists" as part of the official political system are, of course, left-wing conservatives, but in general in developed countries (to which Chile can already be added) such a combination is marginal and atypical, and a new struggle of the poles is already visible: patriarchal antiglobalists - Right-wing conservative reactionaries against the emancipated globalized gender-egalitarian humanists-left-liberals. Sometime it will be so with us, although the second pole is just beginning to mature. Poor countries are right-wing patriarchal, but development is inevitably associated with “leftward” as a result of a change in values in society towards equality of opportunity, emancipation and gender equality.

In the meantime, you can rejoice for Chile, few countries are so lucky with the president. In the same USA and Great Britain, in recent years, conservative poles have won, in the United States, as a result, there was a change to a centrist (not so hot), in France the centrist is also in power, but given how inequality is growing in the world, and how more and more a modern state should to respond to the challenges and consequences of growing inequality, to modern gender standards and issues of equality of opportunities, and neither the right, nor the centrists do this (and the "right" are even trying to roll back), only such a new "left" turn can give the necessary development (of course , only conditionally "left" - because the main thing here is about freedoms and opportunities, and all redistribution is only for their sake) ... "

The expert further explains why he does not consider the new President of Chile to be a populist, despite the fact that such concerns have already been expressed:

“For a populist, it seems to me, he has a too detailed program and too sensitive social topics, the same LGBT people, which I would not call populist issues. Populists usually throw in very general words that they will take away from everyone and give out to everyone, and do not touch sensitive topics, but here, nevertheless, this is not at all like that. More emphasis on human rights and modern, not necessarily economic, social issues, as it seems to me. But, as I understand it, a significant share of the votes for him was also a protest against that alternative candidate, who is generally a Pinochet fan, local Trump and complete tin.

I don’t see his membership in any radical parties either. His own party, Social Convergence, as Google translates from Spanish to English, is a mixture of Social Democrats, Feminists, Greens, Progressives, Direct Democrats and Socialists, and for a time included "Left Libertarians" as well. Those. quite healthy moderate left. At the same time, his party is part of the "Common Front" bloc, which mainly consists of Social Democrats, and which in turn for the last parliamentary elections entered into a coalition with another bloc of communists, greens, "Christian left" and "humanists".

But yes, let's see, very interesting and very high hopes. A parliament with a strong faction of right-conservatives, of course, will resist, but I think, in general, taking into account, just, checks and balances, the movement will be as it should..."