Given that there were large demands for change, some thought that the issue was easy: to Offer things that are raised as a major reform, and with this we account of the political crisis in Chile. A short walk, it was demonstrated that in reality it was not easy: That between those who wanted more changes, the people who wanted those who wanted less, that they thought they were implementing it wrong, it just dissolved the most pro-change. Apparently, the power of the word, the mere name (as if change or reform suggest something without going into the content) could be sufficient to recompose the body politic.
As this did not work, in the last few weeks we have been able to observe others who have another recipe of ease: As the chileans, finally, proved to be rather moderate, then it is time to return to the moderation (which as well was, I guess, sometimes add). That actually is a thing not to get excited about much in the swing and have the feet on the ground (Gallagher, Rock and Velasco all have been given a version of the above in the last few weeks)
What we will see then, I guess, if it is that diagnosis and vision is that which is done, will be the difficulties that it produces. There will be more to remember that to tip moderaciones consensus between them that would create consensus now, is that we generated the foundations that led to the current situation. The decrease of the voting or disaffection come from a good time, the criticism of the situation of society (though not necessarily the personal life) also. Operate the 2015 as if they were the conditions of 1990 implies a blindness of brand higher.
In fact, we think of the ’90s. Someone might think that returning to this would be the only way forward: what is not created there basic agreements that allowed it to operate for decades? (and that, evil that evil, allowed several transformations that now we forget, it was in those years that are passed, by order, the divorce or of the development BOOM, which limited and all, there was a breakthrough). And of course, the issue is that the conditions of the ’90’s are not now. When in the ’90’s the two coalitions mainstream would agree, it could be said that the country would agree, because those coalitions to effectively representing the majority of the population (that voted for them) and practically all of the actors with power. Can you say the same thing now? Do not represent, do not cover all actors. Even to reproduce the results of the ’90 (agreements sustainable, so beloved by some) is clearly required to do very different things.
The search to do things the way insurance may well end up being the most unsafe roads. Will not be out of place to recall the situation of the poor frog with the hot water, which at the point of moderate changes, and insurance ends up dead and boiled.
NOTE. And with this we conclude, I hope, the entries on the situation in Chile and will come back to another thing.