NOTE | Government Programs and Security

The proposals focus on the fight against organized crime and drug trafficking, which was expected, but they overlook that public security issues, in particular, and national security issues, in general, go much further and are considerably more complex.

In recent weeks, the government program proposals of some presidential candidates have been made public. Considering that there are less than three months until the elections—at least for the first round of the presidential election—it is necessary to review what the various candidates for La Moneda are proposing. AthenaLab conducted a review of the programmatic proposals (review here) related to national security, foreign policy, defense, public security, and intelligence from the three candidates who, according to available polls, have the highest chances of advancing to the runoff: Jeannette Jara, José Antonio Kast, and Evelyn Matthei.

Without delving into the details of each document, it is possible to identify some ideas that need to be highlighted. First, there is a clear emphasis on measures to combat organized crime, which is very commendable, considering that it is the main concern of Chileans. In this regard, all candidates agree in identifying this problem as the most urgent and prioritized issue, in addition to linking security with the country’s development, which is very positive.

There is also consensus on the concern to address border issues and implement security plans to manage irregular migration, showing a cross-cutting interest in strengthening the role of the Armed Forces (FF.AA.) in this area. The proposals also converge on the need to improve prison infrastructure in light of the crisis the country is experiencing, emphasizing the need to expand infrastructure to accommodate overcrowding and allow for proper classification of inmates.

In the realm of internal security, the recovery of public space is also mentioned as a priority in all three candidacies, which is a step in the right direction. However, the focus of the interventions differs.

While Jara emphasizes police action to address crime in the act (through specialized units) and state interventions of public services for greater state presence, Kast highlights the rapid recovery of areas turned into encampments and the need to reclaim streets and plazas through a plan against illicit trade. In Matthei’s case, the importance of technology for this purpose is emphasized.

There is concern over the little emphasis placed by all three candidates on the issue of corruption, as it is well known that organized crime needs the state to operate. Furthermore, while the proposals recognize the importance of pursuing money to dismantle organized crime, the measures focus on strengthening institutions such as the Financial Analysis Unit (UAF) and freezing resources, without addressing the role that the police and the Public Ministry will play as central institutions in crime prosecution.

On the other hand, in public security, it is noteworthy that there are significant differences in the role assigned to prevention and the programs sought to be implemented, as well as the role assigned to private entities and municipalities in this matter.

Regarding aspects of national security, foreign policy, and defense, there is a weakness or absence of concrete proposals. For example, one issue omitted in all three proposals is a global perspective on national security and the advancement of establishing an institutional framework capable of supporting, integrating, and coordinating all state agencies and institutions on this matter.

In the various programs, the word ‘security’ is abundant, and measures to address organized crime from a police perspective are proposed, but they do not take a global and systemic long-term view. On the other hand, all three texts converge in recognizing the urgency of creating a more modern, integrated, and effective national intelligence system. However, not all advance with the same clarity in measures that head in that direction, as it seems that this essential function and its role in state security are not well understood.

Regarding foreign policy, it is striking that there are no proposals or measures in such a relevant area for the country, except for one of the candidacies, which presents some general ideas. In National Defense, only two presidential candidates propose real measures in this area, which is important, but they do not address urgent and key strategic issues—or do so partially—such as Mandatory Military Service, the defense industry, the maintenance of strategic capabilities, and the joint interoperability of the Armed Forces.

However, it is worth noting the concern of one of the programs regarding a relevant and sensitive issue such as talent retention in defense institutions.

Ultimately, what is evident is that, in general, the proposals concentrate on the fight against organized crime and drug trafficking, which was expected, but they forget that public security issues, in particular, and national security issues, in general, go much further and are considerably more complex.

Thus, with the gaps and ambiguities noted, it seems that some issues that should be part of the national debate are being avoided, and there is a rather short-term perspective rather than a global and strategic one. This is fundamental to resolving the current security situation in the country and crucial for addressing threats that affect the security of Chileans. It is understood that these documents are rather declarative, without specific details, but there is a longing for definitions regarding objectives, resources, and somewhat more concrete timelines.

The invitation is to inform oneself in the best way possible and to closely follow how these proposals complement each other over time, as it is possible to think that there is much more behind these documents and that the candidates will have the opportunity to explain them.