The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Uncategorised

Shuffled Cards – Berlin Bulletin No. 197

What can we expect of the new governments in Germany and Berlin in 2022? And how strong is the left opposition?


02/01/2022

Dear readers, friends and relatives,

Plenty has been happening in Germany these past months, in Berlin most especially.  And where were the BERLIN BULLETINS or, more exactly, where was their author? The answer is simple. Like Germany and most of the world, I got hit by Corvid (despite two vaccinations). I was ill  for four weeks, three in the hospital (one in Intensive Care). Now recuperating at home (with a tube pumping oxygen into my nostrils), I have finally gathered up enough energy to get them going again. (But Germany is still in an epidemic mess, with rules changing every day, and protests continuing!)

++++

After the German elections on September 26th it took, as usual, weeks and weeks for the three coalition parties to agree: On one program, full of compromises, pledges and promises (some of which may even been be kept) and to resolve quarrels over who gets which cabinet seat. The answer to that old question, “Who’s on  first?” was clear – Olaf Scholz, the Social Democrat (SPD), became chancellor, after sixteen years with Merkel. Finally, on Dec. 8th, he and 16 cabinet ministers were sworn in. Nine pious ones added an appeal to the divinity, “so help me God!” while the five Green ministers and three of the six Social Democrats (including Scholz) decided to risk the job without His Assistance.

Pious or not, they were faced by the old truism, “Two’s company, three’s a crowd!” The SPD still calls itself “left” and tries somehow to appeal to workers, or at least union leaders. The Greens, once the party of rebelliousness, still stand for women’s rights, gay rights in all variations, opposing neo-Nazis and far-right xenophobia. But they have grown tamer and tamer. While still playing their basic environment-ecology card they often cozy up to monopolies who like to talk green but always think first of their bank accounts.  In southern Baden-Württemberg, the Greens’ one and only state governor gets along fine with Daimler-Benz, the giant which is centered there. In Hesse, as junior coalition partners of the Christian Democrats (CDU),  they have had no known run-ins with the bank interests centered in Frankfurt/Main. All the same, the media still classifies those two as “left” – or at least “center-left”.

But that third Free Democratic Party (FDP) is unabashedly right-wing pro-capitalist, at least in all economic matters. Despite the  fewest popular votes of the three its’ good-looking, well-spoken one-man boss, Christian Lindner, has a loud voice. It is he who grabbed the powerful job of Finance Minister and has taken a no-compromise stand against raising taxes on the super-rich (using the same leak-down arguments as in the USA since Reagan). While SPD and Greens have ties with the monopolies, they occasionally move them to make limited concessions. Like raising minimum wages, some aid to children and a few more euros to the jobless. But Lindner and his FDP belong outright to the ‘biggies’. Whether the pandemic wanes or worsens: working people, the jobless, the elderly, and several millions with precarious, temp, gig, part-time and unprotected jobs will all have to exert strong pressure “from below”  to hinder further stagnation or worse.

Even more disturbing – or alarming – is foreign policy.  The media contains constant, often daily warnings about Russian plans for aggression against the Ukraine. The so-called Very High Readiness Joint Task Force has cut the time allotted for going into  action from seven to five days. What was lacking, however, was any evidence of anything else but the stationing of Russia’s forces within its own borders, while the military forces of fifteen NATO countries, including the USA, Germany and Britain, conduct annual maneuvers – far from their homes but all along Russian  boundaries.

Sevim Dagdelen,  the most militant deputy of The Left in the Bundestag, used the question time to ask what the basis was for the frightening build-up. The official answer was: “In this exceptional case, security requirements “ which made it impossible to give her an answer. Video films on TV of Russian tanks sitting near the Ukrainian border show no activity at all but are used over and over, obviously for lack of anything more convincing. The media’s blood-thirstiest warrior, the Springer Company “Das Bild,” printed a map with arrows showing Russian strategy plans. But – oh dear – the name given Lviv (or Russian Lvov) was Lemberg, not used since 1945; they seem to have used an old Nazi-era map (or older). (Note: The far-right Springer Co. now owns the news agency Politico, which seems to be just as alarmist.)

And who is now in charge of German foreign policy? It is Annalena Baerbock, the Greens party leader and always among the loudest in belligerent, bellicose statements against Russia, and now China too.

German foreign policy has long been divided between: First the “Atlanticist” position – all for armaments and maneuvers along Russian borders and in the South China Sea, the more the better; and second the commercial position, reflecting the need for trade with Russia and even more with China, its main trading partner. Merkel was caught in the middle. Some in the SPD may also prefer trade and diplomacy to belligerence or war. The Green leaders (though not all of their grass roots membership) are avid Atlanticists. Baerbock made that clear: “We stand by our responsibility within the framework of NATO and the EU and also for nuclear participation… We have to procure the successor system for the (A-bomb-carrying, VG) Tornado because the conventional capabilities have to be replaced.”

Although a majority of Germans want no military action, the peace movement, though valiant, is still far too weak and splintered, and currently even side-lined by weekly protest marches by the corvid-downplaying anti-vaxing crowd, which includes both leftists as well as far-rightists.

And what about The Left?

The disastrous results of the September election (4.9%) have been blamed on all sorts of things, often on the left wing of the party’s stress on opposing NATO and deploying of German soldiers abroad. But far more convincing is the charge that the major mistake was the dream of many party leaders of becoming the third party in a coalition with the SPD and Greens. This led them to resolutely attack the Christian Democrats (CDU), who were never their rivals for votes. This would ‘spare the rod’ with the Greens and SPD – in hopes of being accepted by them as partners in a new government. But this did not hurt the CDU at all; if anything it brought them votes which might have gone to The Left. In the election, the Christians lost and so did The Left. The latter had sadly neglected its two major playing cards: the  militant spokesperson for working people, the jobless and poorly paid – and the only genuine party for peace. With the collapse of the war in Afghanistan it passed up the opportunity to loudly recall: “Only WE, alone, opposed that war from the start!” and “We must never again engage in a NATO war or any foreign war!”

Even more basic, just one major candidate of The Left, co-chairwoman Janine Wissler, hesitantly attacked the whole billionaire-led system. It’s a daring stand, risky, but gaining ground. If matched by a genuine street-for-street fight for people’s rights it can have surprising results; a Communist woman recently won out as mayor in Austria’s second city, Graz.

The city-state Berlin also had elections on September 26th. For five years it has been ruled by that very same SPD-Greens-The Left coalition which some in The Left dreamt of achieving on a national scale. In vain! But in Berlin – Germany’s capital and biggest city – the state election results made it logical, arithmetically, to renew that coalition for five more years and avoid upsetting the applecart.

Then how could anyone favour breaking up this ruling trinity? There were some possible reasons. The five past years in government had cost The Left votes: it had dropped from third place in 2016 (with 15.6%) to fourth place, (with 14.1%) now behind the Greens, and lost its traditional first place in three East Berlin boroughs. Almost every time The Left manages to join a government coalition it loses votes in the following election. For protest voters it has become part of the Establishment.

Now, as the weakest partner, it lost its key cabinet post, Housing – after a disappointing (because greatly obstructed) record in building new apartment houses.

But the over-riding issue was the amazing initiative demanding the “confiscation” (though paying for it at market prices) of all housing owned by the seven companies with over 3000 apartments. In especial ‘Deutsche Wohnen’, which owns 243,000 of Berlin’s 1.5 million apartments. Members of The Left had outdone themselves to get this initiative on the ballot, collecting 350,000 signatures. Meanwhile its coalition partner the SPD opposed it and the Greens waffled and dragged their feet. This was the biggest truly fighting step The Linke has ever taken.

All Germany was amazed when over a million Berliners voted a resounding “Ja” –  59.1% (to 40.9% voting “Nein.”)! People everywhere, hit hard by rapidly rising rents and fearful of being forced out of their homes (and in Germany a majority live in rented apartments), hoped the move might spread beyond Berlin. The real estate giants, nearly all foreign-controlled, feared cuts in their big profits and grand gentrification plans and had exerted every possible form of pressure – but lost!

However, the vote is only a requirement to put the matter on the agenda of the Berlin legislature, not to enforce action. And that means trouble, most clearly in the form of Berlin’s new mayor.  Franziska Giffey of the SPD, young, attractive, popular, once a borough mayor in West Berlin, then a cabinet minister in the national government. But only until it was “unearthed” that, in 205 pages of her doctorate dissertation, plagiarism was evident in 76 of them! Goodbye to her degree, goodbye to her national cabinet seat! Amazingly, she then landed on her feet back in Berlin, where her SPD got the most votes and she became its first woman mayor! And Giffey, like her party, rejects confiscation. Her plagiarism could be publicly proved – but her (and the SPD’s) ties to real estate interests could not.

Should The Left buckle , and accept her flouting of over a million Ja voters and join again in the city government? Yes, said right-leaning party leaders, who wangled a “compromise”. This is a three-party commission plus experts to “study the legal and financial questions involved in confiscation” – for a year of deliberation and report conclusions after which further measures could be taken. It was clear to everyone what this meant: Side-track it until enthusiasm and activity had subsided, then fully dilute or quietly bury it, i.e. postpone it to “Sankt-Nimmerleinstag” (“St. Neverman’s Day”).

In addition, the Left would lose the important Housing department. Instead it gets the departments of Culture, Social Services and Justice (largely about the prisons). All are important, but none are crucial or can win back many voters. In a first debate on the question of maintaining a status quo, 40% were opposed. But in a write-in vote of the entire membership, three-quarters of those who took part favoured staying in the ruling coalition. And so it will be.

Such differences at the state level reflect the worrying condition of the whole party. It is divided, partly due to some East West differences, but also to personal animosities, often paired closely with political views. Two one-time stalwart militants, Sahra Wagenknecht and her husband Oskar Lafontaine, a major party founder, have zig-zagged enough to move them to the party periphery. There has still not been any open debate as to why the party lost so disastrously in September, and what meaningful consequences – even painful personal ones – that requires.

A basic question remains: Will the party continue urging reforms and votes against arms sales and military deployment abroad, but playing down any basic condemnation of NATO and Pentagon‘s dangerous belligerency and unceasing push on all continents for world hegemony? All while equating this with Putin’s attempts at self-defense of Russia? Will it join the crowd in a continuing  disparagement of the GDR, really aimed against socialism in general? Or will it take militant positions, opposing billionaires, from Krupp or Lockheed-Martin to Amazon and Facebook, Daimler and Bayer-Monsanto, keeping in mind the eventual need to send them off to the moon, to Mars or wherever? That would require The Left’s support for strikes, for those evicted, for all laid-off and underpaid working people. Not only in the Bundestag or state legislatures but at direct ground-level, primarily in the workshops, job centers, offices, universities – encouraging people to have a goal, for which they can fight together, march together, picket together and also sing together.

The next big meeting of The Left, probably only viral, is planned for February. Perhaps new methods and directions can gain ground – and save the sagging  party before it is too late!

                                                                      *

In closing, I hope for a genuine improvement of Russian-American relations, not just a photo-op.

And, also because my illness prevented me from sending any individual greetings, I send my personal greetings to all readers, relatives and friends with the hopes for a healthier, happier and more peaceful 2022. My own escape from fatal epidemic clutches strengthens the words, “Where there’s life there’s hope!”

 So – Happy New Year!

New Year’s Greetings from theleftberlin.com

With apologies to Guardian artist Martin Rowson for a version of his nags


01/01/2022

Paragraph 218 makes abortion practically illegal – Scrap it!

Kate Cahoon from the Bündnis für sexuelle Selbstbestimmung on the chances of law reform, international solidarity and why abortion is still illegal in Germany


16/12/2021

Hi Kate. Thanks for giving us your time. Could you start by introducing yourself, and saying a little about the Bündnis für Sexuelle Selbstbestimmung, where you are active?

I’ve been living in Germany for 12 years. At some point, I realised that abortion is technically still a crime in this country. I couldn’t believe it and have been involved in the pro-choice coalition Bündnis für sexuelle Selbstbestimmung ever since. We’re a broad coalition of activists and representatives from political parties, NGOs, health providers, unions and other civil society groups.

In addition to the protests against the anti-choice “Marsch des Lebens” every September and regular campaigns for abortion rights, we also helped to build a nationwide network of pro-choice groups and initiated protests around Safe Abortion Day (28 September) in Germany.

What is paragraph 219? Maybe you can start by explaining the background to this law. Why was it introduced and how has it been used?

Paragraph 219a of Germany’s criminal code prohibits doctors from advertising abortion services or providing information about abortions on their websites. The law was introduced by the Nazis in 1933 and lay dormant for decades, until anti-choicers started to use it to initiate lawsuits against practitioners, like the well-known case against doctor Kristina Hänel. She was fined for providing information on her website in 2017 but refused to accept the verdict, promising to take the matter to Germany’s constitutional court. Hänel’s response was accompanied by nationwide protests and media reports, helping to re-ignite the movement for abortion rights in Germany. 

Germany, and particularly Berlin, has a reputation for having liberal laws on sexual freedom, and yet abortion is still illegal here. Can you explain?

Religion has a much stronger influence on German politics and the wider society than many people realise. Parts of the country are still deeply conservative; Christian fundamentalists and right-wing actively oppose the existing regulations on abortion and push for even more restrictive laws. That’s despite the fact that the vast majority of people in Germany is evidently in favour of abortion.

Many people, especially young people, are shocked when they find out about the current legislation or encounter the deliberate hurdles placed in the path of those in need of abortion services, like mandatory counselling and the three day waiting period before an abortion can be performed.

What do the various political parties in Germany say about abortion rights?

The CDU/CSU have staunchly opposed any attempt to reform Germany’s abortion laws in the past decades. They are explicitly anti-choice and consider the current legislation to be an ideal “compromise” between the interests of those facing an unwanted pregnancy and “unborn life”. Leading AfD politicians like Beatrix von Storch are vocal on abortion and meet openly with the leaders of Germany’s anti-choice movement. Their party platform often combines racist and anti-choice messaging, demanding a “Wilkommenskultur für Ungeborene”, meaning unborn (white German) babies should be welcomed into the country instead of refugees. 

The Left party (die LINKE) is the only political party to have consistently demand the full legalisation of abortion from the outset. The Greens and the Social Democrats are broadly pro-choice and have become more explicit about the need to remove abortion from the criminal code in the lead up the recent election. Despite claiming to be liberal, the FDP is not in favour of fully legalising abortion and frequently refers to the Constitutional Court rulings of 1975 and 1993 which assert a right to life for every individual embryo. 

How strong is the Anti-Choice movement in Germany? Who goes to the “Marsch für das Leben” (March for Life)?

The anti-choice movement in Germany is well funded and closely connected to religious fundamentalist groups and organisations from other European countries and other parts of the world, in particular the US. Prominent members of the AfD have been known to march in the front row of the March for Life in Berlin and CDU parliamentarians often send official greetings to participants.

A few years ago, the march was attracting large numbers of participants, around 7,000-8,000 people who  mainly came in on buses from other parts of the country and neighbouring Poland. The organisers tried to attract young people by organsing a weekend of “pro-life” activities in the capital city. It’s a strange mix of church goers enjoying a family outing and right-wing fanatics with signs referring to the “Babycaust”.

Thankfully – and perhaps as a result of the loud and disruptive protests organised by our coalition and other radical left groups – the number of participants has decreased significantly in recent years. 

This year sees the 150th anniversary of paragraph 218. What is this paragraph, and what are its effects?

Abortions are regulated by paragraph 218 of the criminal code, in the chapter on “Crimes against Life” next to murder and manslaughter. These laws were introduced back in 1871, and while they didn’t apply in East Germany, where abortion on demand was legal from 1972 onwards, they were reinstated for the Federal German Republic in the early 1990s. 

Aside from criminalising abortion per se, the law stipulates that pregnant women are required to seek counselling services by state accredited authorities in order for them to be able to terminate a pregnancy. An abortion can be performed if certain conditions are met, however, the act remains unlawful. The wording of the law is clearly paternalistic and intended to discourage those with an unwanted pregnancy from seeking an abortion. It contributes to social stigma around abortion and creates considerable barriers to abortion access. 

Some counselling services run by church institutions will provide counselling without issuing the certificate needed, intentionally misleading clients. The number of doctors and public hospitals willing to perform abortions in this uncertain setting has plummeted in recent years, particularly in regional areas. Medical students do not routinely learn how to perform an abortion as part of their studies, which has led to young doctors organising workshops to practice on papayas. The costs of an abortion are also not covered by statutory health insurance, although individuals with a low income can wade through endless paperwork to get costs reimbursed by federal states. 

The new German government has promised to abolish paragraph 219. That’s great news, isn’t it?

In 2018 it also looked like paragraph 219a was about to be scrapped and it didn’t happen, because the FDP side-stepped and the SPD ultimately changed their minds, not wanting to risk their chances of becoming coalition partners with the CDU. Now the Greens, SPD and FDP have promised to do it, but it’s still yet to happen. 

Why do you think that the incoming government has promised to abolish paragraph 219 at this time?

Basically it’s long overdue; the SPD and Greens in particular would have lost credibility if they didn’t make it happen. I think the coalition partners are keen to appear progressive and were happy to find something they could agree upon so easily. The real issue that needs to be tackled is paragraph 218.

Some people have suggested that the upcoming reforms might weaken our case for legal abortion. I don’t agree. The fact that paragraph 218 and the need for abortion to be covered by statutory health insurance is mentioned in the coalition paper at all is a direct result of our protests in the last few years and our efforts to set the agenda in the lead up to the election. No government is ever going to hand our rights to us on a plate – we will have to keep fighting for it and we’re one huge step closer than we were before. 

Abortion rights aren’t just an issue in Germany. In recent years, abortion has been legalised in Ireland and Argentina. What can the movement here learn from these successes? 

Abortion rights are contested in many parts of the world, and in countries like Poland and Argentina hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets in recent years to demand safe and legal abortion. We don’t have these kinds of mass mobilizations in Germany at this point in history, perhaps because the situation here is perceived as being less urgent, but there’s still a lot we can learn from other struggles. 

In Berlin, we have particularly strong links with the movement in Poland across the border. Many Polish women live in Germany or come over here to get abortions. Although they are facing massive repression, they are also showing great resilience. 

The examples of Ireland and Argentina give us hope – if the fight for legal abortion can be won after such a long battle, we are bound to succeed in the end as well.

Finally, how can someone who wants to fight for Choice get more involved in Berlin?

Join die LINKE and make sure our party stays at the forefront of the struggle for legal abortion! But aside from that, follow the Bündnis für sexuelle Selbstbestimmung on social media and support our protests. International activists and groups are also encouraged to get in touch and potentially help plan activities for International Safe Abortion Day on September 28. 

 

News from Berlin and Germany, 17th December 2021

Weekly news roundup from Berlin and Germany


15/12/2021

NEWS FROM BERLIN

290 antisemitic street names

Almost 300 street and square names in Berlin have anti-Semitic references. This is the conclusion of a scientific study commissioned by Samuel Salzborn, Berlin’s anti-Semitism commissioner. According to this, the street names affected included already discussed street names such as Treitschkestraße in Berlin-Steglitz and Pacelliallee in Berlin-Dahlem, but also all Martin Luther streets, Otto-Dibelius-Straße in Charlottenburg or Pastor-Niemöller-Platz in Pankow. In other cases, such as Thomas Mann Strasse or Adenauerplatz, the expert pleaded for further research and digital contextualisation. All of those situations shows “different intensities” of anti-Semitism, as mentioned by Salzborn. The author therefore gave different intervention recommendations. Renaming would be the last measure. Source: rbb

Police focal point unit accused of racial profiling

The establishment of the focal point and presence unit (BPE) was celebrated by Interior Senator Andreas Geisel (SPD) as a central piece of police reform. It has been just under two years since then. That is how long the 125 officers of the BPE have been on duty in so-called crime-ridden areas. However, the BPE is accused of illegal racial profiling. The accused, who has been transferred, is said to be a service group leader. Niklas Schrader, the Left’s spokesperson on domestic policy, plans to put a parliamentary question on the practice of residence bans as soon as possible. Source: taz

AfD supporters demonstrate against compulsory vaccination – several counter-protests.

Several hundred AfD supporters, including its junior organization, demonstrated on Saturday afternoon against a possible compulsory vaccination in Germany. Around 600 participants marched to the government quarter, according to the police. The AfD youth were opposed by about 80 counter-demonstrators who gathered at Washingtonplatz. However, a direct clash was prevented by Einsatzhundertschaften. The protest was registered by Geradedenken e.V. under the slogan “No place for right-wing propaganda”. A small group of left-wing counter-demonstrators tried to attack the march from behind. However, this was prevented by the police. Around 90 other counter-demonstrators gathered at Simson-Weg under the slogan “No Nazi round-up”. Source: berliner zeitung

 

NEWS FROM GERMANY

Chancellor Scholz’s responsibility for Black deaths in custody

Michael Paul Nwabuisi (Achidi John), died at the age of 19. Three days before his death, he slipped into a coma after being force-fed emetics at the UKE’s Institute of Forensic Medicine (IfR). It is an irony of contemporary history that exactly 20 years later to the day, the man who is politically responsible for Achidi John’s death was elected Chancellor: Olaf Scholz. Also, according to the Hamburg-based “Initiative in Memory of Achidi John”, between 2001 and 2006 a total of 530 people – almost exclusively young black men – were brought to the IfR by the police and threatened or maltreated with the infliction of the emetic. Source: jW

Right-wing arson suspect no longer investigated by police

Between September 2018 and July 2019, twelve arson attacks on left-wing centres and house projects in the Rhine-Main region caused uncertainty among users and residents. The suspect in the act of arson in the Hanau cultural project Metzgerstraße was then caught. However, he is no longer being investigated by the police. This has caused huge outrage in the circle of left projects. Even during the series of attacks, those affected repeatedly criticised the work of the authorities. And they researched about the attacks, learning that the suspect had already denounced left-wing and feminist projects nationwide from 2015 onwards. Source: nd

Autonomists blamed for arson attack on Mosque

A mosque in Leipzig was attacked, and 4 of its windows were smashed. According to initial information, the mosque was damaged in connection with a procession of about a hundred hooded people, whom police classify as a left-wing-motivated group. Along the nearby Eisenbahnstraße in the Volkmarsdorf district, the group also set fire to rubbish bins. The police took eleven people into custody. No further information was released. Also, on last Monday, about 200 people from the left-wing spectrum gathered for a demonstration against police violence in the eastern part of the city. There were reported several incidents of damage to property. Source: spiegel

Combat Drones Remain a Contentious Issue in the SPD

For parts of the SPD, a “done by coalition agreement” approach to the procurement of combat drones is out of the question. The SPD stands for disarmament and peace and should not participate in an “arms spiral”, said Alexander Roth. Former Juso chair Franziska Drohsel also called for a “clear peace policy signal” from the party conference. The use of armed drones is questionable under international law because of the weapons’ lack of targeting accuracy and often causes “considerable suffering” for the civilian population in the conflict area. As the new Secretary General, Kevin Kühnert must now represent this dispute. Source: nd

 

“There is space for change when millions take to the streets”

Ahead of Sunday’s elections in Chile, we talk to activist Pablo Abufom Silva about 50 years of neoliberalism, the mass protests of 2019 and the threat of fascism


Hello Pablo, thanks for agreeing to talk to us. Could we start by you introducing yourself. Who are you, and where are you politically active?

I am an activist and freelance translator from Santiago de Chile. I’m a member of Solidaridad, an anticapitalist, feminist and (left-)libertarian movement. I’ve been involved in radical politics for almost 20 years, as a student during college, and later in the movement for a new pensions system. I was heavily involved in the popular assemblies that were born during the October 2019 revolt.

It’s been nearly 50 years since the Pinochet coup introduced neoliberalism to Chile. How has the country changed since then?

The country was radically changed during the dictatorship (1973-1990). First of all, the political institutions and the economic relations were deeply transformed by handbook neoliberal policies such as privatization of public services, opening of new local markets for international corporations and a radical transformation of labor relations by the physical and political destruction of unions and other popular organizations. Also, in 1980, a new Constitution was drafted, one that established a restricted democracy and a barely existent role for the State in the economy.

Moreover, by detaining and torturing and disappearing thousands, the dictatorship destroyed an entire generation of social and political struggles, thus stopping the deep advances the Left had made for decades in Chile, both in terms of militant organization and a socialist program. The result of this was a profound setback in the political consciousness of the working people in Chile. It took several years before we could begin to see new waves of mass mobilizations that would awaken a fresh spirit of revolt and deep structural changes against the neoliberal regime.

Two years ago, there were massive protests in Chile. Why were people protesting and did they win?

The direct origin of the protests was a fare hike in public transport. But the deep roots of the revolt that ensued were the inequities and precarious conditions under which millions live in Chile. It rapidly became clear what the target of the protests were: 30 years of post-dictatorship neoliberalism, which had included not only a preservation of the neoliberal politics of the 80s, but also a political regime that left no space for true change. The president, Sebastián Piñera, responded with the declaration of a state of emergency and sending the military to dissolve the protests. It was worse. The fire rapidly spread from Santiago to the rest of the country. So Piñera also became a target of the mobilizations, and calls for his resignation became a daily mantra in the streets. Perhaps one of the most interesting demands was that of a Constituent Assembly, since the Constitution was seen as a hindrance to any structural change.

So far, I would say that we have won two things. First, a sense of our own strength as a people and that there is space for change when millions take to the streets and protest. Every wave of protests has its own lessons, and it will take us a few years to realize exactly what they are, but it is evident that we need more organization, that a people without strong social movements and mass political organizations will never go beyond massive protests, because it won’t have the necessary social, political and community networks to sustain that struggle and take it to the level of politically durable changes. Second, a Constitutional Convention that opened a new avenue for political struggle beyond the regular state institutions.

And then last year, 80% of Chileans voted for a new constitutions. To many people, constitutions sound a bit boring. Was this vote boring?

It wasn’t boring at all! People were truly excited about a new Constitution, and being able to elect their own representatives to draft it. There is a widespread feeling that changing the Constitution is the beginning of further change, and that is very interesting. Previous waves of protests had focused on issues such as public education, pensions, health care or socio-environmental conflicts. But now there seems to be a view that takes all of that and puts it in the context of the political constitution of a country, that is, of the way a society is organized. So this seems like a relevant leap in political consciousness, from disperse sectorial demands to a global political transformation.

What is the relationship between the protests, the referendum and the presidential candidature of Gabriel Boric?

I must say it’s somewhat of a surprise that Gabriel Boric became the presidential candidate after all that happened. He is part of the moderate wing of the Left coalition, and one could expect that after such a massive wave of protests and grassroots organizing, a more radical candidate would have emerged to represent that spirit. But that didn’t happen. So the question is, why? I believe that the sort of changes that Chile needs are so basic (decent public housing, healthcare, pensions and education, for starters) that even that kind of transformations demand a radical mobilization by the people.

Some commentators are denouncing (or praising) Boric for being a Communist. How radical is he?

Boric is and has always been a moderate, even within his own party. This has been both a good and a bad thing for him. He wasn’t able to attract the vote of many people in the Left or those who don’t trust moderate politicians, but at the same time he has a following in less politicized sectors of the working class, or among white collar workers and the liberal middle class. One could say he is a classic social democrat, in the sense that his program is that of gradual change towards a democratic and social state.

The right wing here, as elsewhere, plays the red-scare card all the time, and it has done so in every election since 1970. It has worked a couple of times. This time they are using it hard. The Communist Party is indeed part of Boric’s coalition, and is one of the main parties backing him. But the Chilean CP has always been a moderate CP, very disciplined with the respect of representative democracy and the need for pacific political change.

So it is pure and simple hypocrisy on the part of the right wing, which has been the only political sector in recent history that has resorted to state sponsored violence not only to supress dissent, but also to take over the economy for the interest of a minority.

Could you say something about Boric’s main opponent, José Antonio Kast. Just how dangerous is he?

José Antonio Kast is a member of the traditional right wing in Chile. His brother was a relevant figure during the dictatorship, he was a member of Congress for over a decade, and until recently was a member of the conservative, nationalist and pro-dictatorship party Unión Demócrata Independiente (UDI). He left the party and built a new one, interestingly called Partido Republicano, “Republican Party”, which has adopted all the tactics of other far-right leaders in the world such as Trump and Bolsonaro: pandering to the radical conservatives with a “law and order” program against migrants, the feminist movement and other socialist agendas, flooding social media with fake news and waging a dirty war against their opponents.

He represents a real threat to human rights and democracy. It’s not that we have a super advanced democracy, but it would definitely be a big step backwards. His program includes the privatization of the main copper company in Chile, which is a crucial basis for the national budget; giving the presidency the power to detain people in their own houses or other non-disclosed locations without notifying a court for up to 5 days; and building a trench and a wall in the northern border in order to stop irregular migration (which of course is targeted as the source of many evils, including crime and drugs, just like any other nationalist party would do).

He has also mentioned creating a specialized unit to prosecute “radical leftists” and combating “cultural Marxism and gender ideology”. Sadly, this is right now a “classic” far-right platform. It’s currently leading the traditional right-wing parties toward that neofascist abyss.

Is Chile experiencing a “surge of fascism”, as some commentators are saying?

It’s not exactly a surge of fascism in its classical sense. It’s a bizarre mix of a revival of “pinochetismo”, that is a conservative, Christian, authoritarian, nationalistic and hardline capitalist vision, and the new forms of radical right-wing movements (NeoCons, Alt-Right, Third Position, including neo-Nazis and purely nationalist groups whose only ideological basis is a defense of Chilean traditions). These forces were relatively dormant during the long transition to democracy in the 1990s and 2000s, but the current social and political crises woke them up, especially after the October revolt. Their reappearance in the public scene is an expression of a counter-revolt that took José Antonio Kast as its leader.

But there is something deeper, more worrisome. If the underlying environmental, economic and political crisis is not confronted and solved in a progressive, transformative direction, there will be more ground for radical right-wing groups, as they promise a radically conservative solution to the crisis, one which identifies an ethnic or national enemy (migrant or indigenous groups), a simple explanation to the crisis (they are taking our jobs) and a nationalistic-authoritarian solution (jobs and safety only for Chileans). So in the long run, the neofascist surge is a symptom of a deeper crisis, and the Left has to confront that or else be an idle witness to a new authoritarian regime in Chile.

Chile is not the only area in Latin America where there is a clear fight between Left and Right. Next year, Lula will be challenging Bolsonaro in the Brazilian elections. How could this be affected by the results of the Chilean elections?

Political developments in Chile should be relevant for other countries in Latin America and elsewhere. We’re facing the most crucial presidential election in decades, but also there’s a Constitutional Convention with a progressive and relatively anti-neoliberal majority that is currently drafting the new Constitution, one that will have to be implemented by the next administration. Kast has been an outspoken opponent of the new Constitution, and Boric has been explicitly supportive of it.

So it’s clear that there are two different constitutional scenarios after the election. If Kast wins, the Constitutional Convention will become a permanent target of his attacks, endangering one of the most democratic moments in Chilean history. This is what’s at stake.

Do you have a prediction for what will happen in the elections? And what would be the wider social implications of this result?

It’s going to be a close election. Many people who voted for the referendum last year didn’t go to the polls in November. If Boric can attract those voters, he will win. But this is not easy. Voter turnout has been declining since the 1990s and the referendum was different, but more an exception than the norm.

Right now, five days before the election, there’s almost total uncertainty. Kast won the first-round in November, with Boric running second. But the shock of Kast winning has caused a surge of social activism that we hadn’t seen since October 2019. Many people who didn’t vote for Boric have joined his campaign to defeat Kast next Sunday.

This is our precarious situation right now: the next president may be elected with a passionate vote against fascism and a half-hearted vote for the candidate. Will this become the basis for an antifascist unity to confront Kast’s leadership of a re-emerging far-right in the next four years as well as a radical left program that will guarantee that Boric won’t turn into an exhausted center-left to fulfill his promises? We can only hope so.