Jorge Pavez: Teachers union leader, Chile

Tell us something about the trajectory of the trade-union
movement and the broader popular movement since the
end of the dictatorship.
The criminal and terrorist repression of the dicta-
torship meant not only the murder of many social
and labor leaders, but also the virtual destruction
of the powerful social movement in existence at the
time. Since 1990, there has been a policy of co-optation
of social organizations carried out by the post-dictator-
ship governments, which has meant the virtual loss of
these movements’ independence-labor in particular–
but also of other movements that emerged during the
dictatorship.
This has also meant a loss of the prestige gained by
the grassroots movement during the struggle for
democracy. The movement was also weakened because
the organizational norms imposed by the dictatorship
via the labor code on the trade unions, neighborhood
associations, etc., remain intact. The prevailing and
growing individualism has had effects that are just now
being overcome. In the past past few years, there have
been signs that the popular movement, particularly the
trade-union sector, is beginning to assume a significant
political role once again.
I am not painting a rosy picture, but there is no doubt
that in the last few union elections there has been a
clear will on the part of a large group of workers to
intensify the struggle for their rights. This process of
regaining trust in social organization and of regaining a
collective consciousness and solidarity, is not only
being expressed in the unions, but in society as a whole.
Society is beginning to lose its fear of social conflict;
rejections of public demonstrations are being replaced
by greater understanding and support, as was the case
with the teachers.
This situation began to take shape between 1980 and
1986 through the trade-union movement and through the
political movement, which was working under very
adverse conditions, even clandestinely. It generated a
model for action common to all the organizations taking
shape then; a model in which the concept of unity among
all Marxist, Christian, and social democratic sectors was
essential. All were united in a common endeavor.
I’m talking about 1986, when a very important prece-
dent was set in this struggle in the effort to create what
came to be known as the Assembly of Civility, a great
conglomeration of professional organizations, unions,
small businesses and students. From civil society this
group put forth what was known as “Chile’s List,”
which proposed a post-dictatorship solution different
from the one which was eventually adopted. This
experiment failed because of the dictatorship’s power,
because of the movement’s ineffectiveness, and
because of the pressure from the Church and the United
States which sought a solution like the one we wound
up with; one within the framework established by the
dictatorship.
At the end of 1988, a political alliance called the
Concertaci6n of Parties for Democracy was formed. Its
NACIA REPORT ON THE AMERICAS
0,
0
C Hi I LVOICES ON THE LEFT
base was centered around the
Christian Democrats. This centrist
alliance incorporated the Socialists, We were ti thereby breaking the historic
Socialist-Communist alliance. The government
result was the success of the
plebiscite which denied Pinochet the COuld no lo
ability to remain institutionalized as the same d dictator, although we had to wait yet
another year for the elections to take made ur place.
The Concertaci6n won those dictatorshi
elections, but within the constraints
of the negotiated transition. The dic- it was no
tator leaves, but the practice of vio- engagein lating human rights, of rolling back
worker’s rights, and a tremendous becaus social debt are all left in place. In
short, the economic model imposed threatened
by the dictatorship is practically the
same one in use by the current gov-
ernment. Then it turned out that under the new govern-
ment, social and labor movements were simply asked to
lower their demands. We were now told that we could
no longer make the same demands we made under the
dictatorship. They were simply not feasible. We were
also told that it was no good to engage in protests and
mobilizations because they threatened democracy.
And then they proposed the idea of a great social con-
sensus based on what the government called a “frame-
work agreement” among businessmen, the unions and
the government. This framework agreement sets forth
some minimal labor-law reforms and a model of devel-
opment in which businessmen rather than workers play
the most important role.
Did the unions withstand the onslaught of the dictator-
ship better than political parties?
Political expressions are born under the aegis of the
social movements and their struggles. Here, the open
fight against the dictatorship was waged by the
National Worker’s Coordinating Committee, which
proposed a national strike in 1983 when the system was
in crisis. But then came pressures from the U.S. State
Department and the Catholic Church, neither of which
wanted a radical solution or the possibility of con-
frontation, since the situation in Chile was starting to
look like Nicaragua.
Nationwide protests that basically called for a halt to
all productive activity were spreading. But there was no
real possibility of that because of the repression. There
were even stronger activities, like those of the students.
They could paralyze transportation since there were so
many barricades and so much chaos in the street that
when buses didn’t come out, workers simply could not
VOL XXXI, No 1 JULY/AUG 1997
n
n
p
e
d
go to work. Thus was the national
strike born, propelled by the strength
Id by the of the labor movement, and supported
from the outside by political parties,
t that we such as the leftist Popular Democratic
Movement, and the Democratic ger make Alliance which included the Christian
mands we Democrats. After the first protest, the Christian Democrats created the
der the Democratic Alliance, and then the
Popular Democratic Movement
and that emerged. That was the union of leftist
parties, primarily Socialists and
good to Communists.
protests The situation reached a climax in
1986, when the grassroots and labor
they movements reached their peak of unity and strength. Unfortunately, the politi-
lemocracy. cal parties were never able to form a
common front. The Communists were
so feared that there was no possibility
of creating a solid alliance to which all could belong.
But we could see that alliance in the labor movement, where Communists, Christian Democrats and Radicals
fought together. All participated; all were united.
Even the lines of action were similar: the Communists
were calling for a popular rebellion, and the Christian
Democrats were calling for civil disobedience. This
whole process reached a climax between 1986 and
1987. At this point we could clearly see that the political
parties of the Democratic Alliance favored a different
outcome from those of the left.
How does the Teachers Guild fit into the current
panorama of the popular movement?
Teachers are a very disenfranchised social sector, but
we have powerful social influence because we are spread
throughout the country. We influence the large portion of
the Chilean population that has children in school.
Generally, we are well respected in Chilean society.
On the other hand, we are contributing to the politi-
cal fight against the economic model. We try to ally
ourselves with workers and with groups that have
recently begun expressing themselves politically. I’m
referring to youth groups, environmentalists, women
and ethnic groups. There are indigenous sectors that are
setting forth their own points of view, such as the
Mapuches in the south and the Aymaras in the north and
demanding respect for their autonomy. These are the
struggles, in addition to the human rights movement, that we teachers support.
Are budget cuts affecting teachers?
Structural adjustment was fully implemented during
the dictatorship, in contrast with other countries where
21VOICES ON THE LEFT
it is being implemented by democratic regimes. This
created huge unemployment, the bankruptcy of indus-
tries, a change in material conditions and a change in
popular mentality. The dictatorship demolished the
country and built another one. We lived through the
great adjustment during which thousands of teachers
were laid off.
But all the same, we still see an effort to cut budgets in
general, a strong push for privatization; let families pay
for education, for example, and relieve the state from that
responsibility. To be fair, education budgets have been
increasing during the Concertacidn governments,
although they haven’t reached pre-dictatorship levels.
They also want to impose absolute labor flexibility in
our sector, which means not paying according to a
worker’s level of experience. There is the belief that sta-
bility is not a necessary good; what matters is produc-
tivity so people should be paid according to their out-
put. This teacher is better because he has a better yield,
so we pay him an extra bonus. That’s the scheme.
From outside, Chile is portrayed as a successful example of
the neoliberal model. What are your feelings about this?
Chile faces the serious task of finding an alternative.
Not everything here is gold. Macroeconomic indicators
do show development. Apparently the country is pro-
gressing, but it’s a very unequal progress which is based
on enormous labor exploitation and with no labor pro-
tection. It’s a successful model based on the exploita-
tion of natural resources. If we don’t change our mode
of production, we will soon find ourselves with no
forests because natural resources will be extinguished.
We will see all rivers and the ocean contaminated.
Marine wildlife, which is enormously rich in this coun-
try, is also being depleted because everything is being
exported. But we can easily reach the conclusion that
this model works and is successful. For example,
Pinochet left behind a legacy of five million poor, and
the Concertaci6n governments think that to bring it
down to four million is a measure of success.
Let me ask you about recent mobilizations. Where are
they leading, and with what strategies and tactics?
The mobilizations point in two directions. On the one
hand, achieving what we call true educational reform,
with the participation of teachers and society. And on
the other, towards achieving decent working and living
conditions through an increase in our wages. Those are
the central demands.
We have been making use of the classic strategy of
presenting demands and demanding a response, accu-
mulating strength through mobilization. If there is no
response, then we move towards a strike; that’s what
has been done. We still have not made the leap to the
political struggle to change the system and change the
22
model. We have no congressmen. We try to keep up the
morale of the sector, to convince them that even within
the model, through mobilization, it is possible to gain
spaces, however small. This is important because this a
long-term struggle.
We have read that there is a lot of popular sympathy for
the movement. Is there a high degree of support for
these demands?
We first made a very democratic effort by calling a
national assembly in which delegates drew up a work
plan for the year, and one of the issues was to claim our
rights. That meant that all the leaders were committed
to comply, because it was everyone’s plan, not just that
of a few. It was agreed upon through consensus. The
leadership formalized that proposal with the govern-
ment, and we began to negotiate and inform teachers
and public opinion about this whole process. We began
this in March, and when we reached the strike in
October, there was already a high level of support since
it had emerged from this democratic assembly and our
strike was absolutely legitimate.
I would say that we have had tremendous support
because the leadership is very united and because of the
high degree of autonomy that the respective political
parties enjoy. This autonomy is necessary for attaining
credibility at the grassroots. People have to see a
healthy autonomy, summoning everyone to a unified
struggle. The rank and file are mobilized, in spite of the
fact that the political consciousness of Chilean workers
has deteriorated. It is necessary to understand that the
next step is changing the model, that within this model
we simply will never get what we deserve.
It’s a movement that, in the medium run, has the pos-
sibility of achieving power. I see that the conditions are
present, based on the objective reality of the country.
There is a very large sector of the Chilean population
that is suffering the effects of the model, and which
trusted the Concertacidn governments to find solutions.
But they are not seeing any. Therefore, we must find a
new alliance that can propose something different, and
which can garner enough trust to nurture this movement.
Now, there are progressives inside and outside the gov-
ernment. The task is to find them and look for a common
space that could permit the possibility of building a more
just country; this is what we have to do. I think you find
leaders when you least expect them. And even though
they are lacking now, I trust that the leadership problem
can be solved quickly. The popular movement is going
through a difficult period, but it’s by no means dead. The
same holds for the rest of Latin America. We must keep
on working in this direction. The need for Latin
Americans to work together is ever more pressing
because throughout the continent, we are experiencing
similar problems.