Until Integrity Becomes a Habit in Chile
By Andres Kogan Valderrama
HAVANA TIMES – March has arrived, and once again in Chile, we will have a year of elections, following the end of the failed constitutional process that we had as a country. This process may have weakened us as transformative forces, but it never took away the hope of building a more democratic country that addresses the widespread discontent of the population with the institutions. Although I know that these institutions need significant changes to generate trust and bring them closer to the citizenry.
Hence, the regional and municipal elections to be held on October 27 of this year can be seen as a new opportunity to address certain issues that matter to Chileans. In general, the citizenry maintains an enormous disaffection with political parties and with the various public bodies, many of which have been implicated in corruption scandals. There is a long list of municipalities accused and investigated for defrauding the state.
For this reason, if there is a central issue in this election that must be addressed by all candidates, it is undoubtedly that of Public Integrity, Probity and Transparency, as these should be the pillars of any program seeking to restore the importance of public service, which is currently in doubt.
However, before proposing anything in this regard, we must first point out the current situation in Chile regarding the fight against corruption. According to the Corruption Perceptions Index, there appears to be a certain stagnation according to the latest measurements, indicating that much needs to be done in the country.
That said, it can be stated that Chile is one of the best-ranked countries in this index at the regional level, surpassed only by Uruguay. However, if one examines the data from the latest Latinobarómetro reports, a significant problem arises when people were asked whether they believe there has been a decrease in corruption in state institutions.
As a result, the role of officials and public servants, as well as the work done at the level of political parties, congress, and municipalities, is increasingly seen in a negative light. Especially in the latter, it becomes very delicate as they are perceived as lacking transparency and control over public resources, being the state entity with the greatest access by the citizenry.
In response to this, it becomes essential to continue advancing and strengthening the anti-corruption agenda, which began with the return to democracy, with the establishment of the National Commission on Public Ethics (1994), the Presidential Advisory Commission for Strengthening Transparency and Probity Principles (2003), the Probity and Transparency Commission (2006), the Presidential Advisory Council on Anti-Corruption (2015), and the Probity and Transparency Commission in Corporations and Foundations (2023).
The latter commission was composed of María Jaraquemada, Ramiro Mendoza, Jeannette Von Wolfersdorff, Ignacio Irarrázaval, and Francisco Agüero. They all produced a report that laid the groundwork for the development of the National Strategy for Public Integrity, which contains 210 measures to combat corruption and build more trust in institutions.
On the other hand, the important role played by bodies such as the Office of the Comptroller, responsible for overseeing public services and entities (auditing, legal, accounting, or jurisdictional), and the Permanent Advisory Council for the Modernization of the State, responsible for advising the President, both being key actors.
However, despite the fundamental nature of this integrity structure, it is not sufficient if the relationship between probity and participation is not addressed, also advancing in the decentralization of power and greater democratization in decision-making. Failure to do so will only result in reacting and forming commissions in response to various existing corruption cases (Davilazo, Mop Gate, Publicam Chile Deportes, Penta, SQM, Caval, Convenios).
In other words, new mechanisms of citizen control must be generated, allowing them to bring institutions and the public sector closer so that the State is seen as the result not only of political parties and certain specific organizations but also of civil society and those who are part of the country, in all its plurality.
Finally, returning to the discussion about the failed constituent process and linking it to the above, I would like to add that among the various factors that influenced its failure, the perception of corruption regarding it and the bad experience lived with the State on a daily basis was undoubtedly fundamental. I say this because seeing the public sphere as something distant and under constant suspicion made it difficult to give credibility to the narrative to approve the new text.
Therefore, although the first constitution drafted by the Constitutional Convention, while enshrining various rights (health, education, housing, security, water), the neoliberal rhetoric that suggests that everything public is bad was reinforced with a distrust of state institutions. Distrust to such an extent that changes were seen as unrealizable and only on paper, which obviously worked against all of us who believed in the process and in a fairer country.