[ad_1]
Daniel Salaverry Repeat again and again the same sentence: "It's a tough day". A few minutes before this interview, the President of the Congress visited Keiko Fujimori in prison and spoke with her for the first time after applying for a license from the witness box. Popular strength.
– Last week, in the middle of a partisan crisis, he was the protagonist of the public discussions with his colleagues. How do you explain what happened?
Sitting in the presidency of Congress is difficult, you are under pressure from all parties. It's not new that it's about convulsive days, since I thought they were. I'm emotionally beaten, it's not easy to see people you think [Keiko Fujimori] in prison. However, I am aware of my responsibility.
– Initially, he stated that his position as Speaker of Parliament had prevented him from being with Keiko Fujimori, but nowadays [ayer] He visited her for the first time. What change?
I said it because I was hearing, defining remand and then preventive detention. A visit by the President of the Congress could have been misinterpreted. After completing the hearings of your case, what corresponds to a friend is to visit and verify that you are well. I will not deny that it was shocking to see her, it was very difficult to see Keiko in jail.
-What was your reaction when you received it?
Although she is a strong woman, it is not easy for anyone to be in this situation. We talked about everything but politics. We remember the campaign, funny anecdotes. We laughed at times and, at other times, became more emotional. I am sure that sooner or later this situation will reverse.
– Does she agree with your direction of Parliament?
As I say, we are not talking politics. But the last time we spoke at a caucus meeting, prior to my license, she was aware of the need for board members to manage us objectively, impartially and fairly. I imagine that he will stay in this position.
– This is the first time that they speak after applying for a license from the People's Force bench. Why was it necessary?
Because as a member of a bancada, one is subject to decisions. And we can not be undisciplined to do anything other than what is agreed. At least I have this training.
– Do you think that one must abide by the orders of his caucus, even as president of Congress?
Even as Congress President, he should have done it. Since I swear, I have maintained an autonomy that generates friction and discrepancies precisely for this reason, of not having respected certain agreements. The healthiest and most logical thing was to apply for this license to make decisions, with much more independence.
-It speaks of independence. Do you need it today, but you did not need it when you took office?
From the first day, I expected the bench to understand what my new role is. Since it was not given and the agreements still had to be respected by everyone, I decided to present my license.
– He did not feel heard inside his bench?
From my first interview, I stated that I wanted less friction, more concrete facts and a dialogue without giving up the oversight role. At first, it was difficult to heal this position. In recent weeks, I have found that we coincide and that there is even a group of congressmen. [fujimoristas] who attended a meeting with President Martín Vizcarra. Now, Fuerza Popular shows his predisposition to this dialogue. I welcome this new attitude and do not repeat, as a few weeks ago, that any dialogue or meeting with the President was a betrayal. Never can a dialogue be understood as a betrayal.
-Were you called a traitor for meeting the head of state?
There were a lot of comments. It is good that this new attitude exists and that Fuerza Popular has understood that the only way to build a better future for the country is to understand each other between different forces and to have a constructive and unconditional dialogue.
– A few weeks ago, it appeared that some members of the Fujimorist Congress did not consider you a president of Fuerza Popular. What do you think of this statement?
I did not read those words. In any case, I am president of 130 members of Congress. In Congress, it is not only the voice of Fuerza Popular, there are the voices of all the political organizations and I must represent them all.
-If the crisis of Fuerza Popular had not been triggered, would you have applied for a license? Because he leaves when he is near the bench, it could be a political cost.
It's just that the crises take you to take a stand. The license gives me the independence to make decisions that do not necessarily benefit a group, but in Congress.
-Have you excluded that the license is the first step towards a more radical decision such as a resignation or a departure from the bench?
At the moment, I do not think about giving up Fuerza Popular.
It looks like a non-temporary.
I do not have a crystal ball to know what can happen in the future.
– The duration of his tenure as Parliament holder will lead to the end of his Popular Force license?
The license is temporary, it does not have a period of validity.
– In other words, it could continue even after his term.
I prefer to focus on the work we have done and not project so much forward. God knows what can happen.
-Because some decisions have the appearance of independence, some of the citizens see with particular care their actions under the control of Parliament. However, there are those who are wary of whether the change meets a real goal of amendment or whether it meets a political strategy. What would you say?
We work to recover the trust of those who see not only Congress, but virtually the entire political class with suspicion. Only time and our work will convince them that it is not a particular political strategy, but concrete actions to improve the image of the Congress.
Was it a mistake to approve within 48 hours the standard enjoyed by older prisoners among whom Alberto Fujimori would be?
As I said at the time, the chair is required to respect the agreements of the board of directors. What I have done is to execute this agreement.
– But the approval of the standard and the delay in the examination of the denunciations against the prosecutor of the Nation, Pedro Chávarry, are precisely two elements that make citizens doubt the true purpose of the amendment.
The president of Congress defines a position, can make an invocation, but it is the members of the commission who are responsible for carrying out the processes and speeding them up.
-Why do you think it is important to quickly review constitutional appeals against Chávarry?
Because you have to show that here we are not in conflict with an authority in question. That a due process be carried out, that their right to defense is respected and that finally, the commissions and the plenary session, if any, will make the decision.
– According to the president of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Accusations, César Segura, the more they insist on the need to debate the accusations, it will be worse.
These are not answers that should be given by the chair of a subcommittee on constitutional charges. You must understand that you have been given a responsibility and that you must be up to the task.
Despite his invocation, Segura again postponed the debate on denunciations and will not be seen tomorrow.
He has a great responsibility in his hands and should deal as quickly as possible not only with this file, but all those who act in his power.
– Should Pedro Chávarry remain prosecutor of the Nation?
It's up to him, as head of school, to think about his permanence. You should evaluate whether this helps the governance of your institution or improves its image. The processes that take place in Congress will take their course and determine in one way or another. I'm not going to join the voices asking Mr. Chávarry to withdraw, because he would not allow me either. He will know if staying in office damages his institution.
– Is this a council position? Because your third vice president, Yeni Vilcatoma, has been tough on you and asked for respect for an autonomous institution.
It's funny, I have not talked about the institution. On the contrary, as a citizen, I invited Dr. Chávarry to think. It will be he who will make the decision.
– Did you talk to him? Have you expressed your discomfort in private?
No. It would have been interesting for him to do it.
-For different groups, your presidency is delegitimized. Is leaving the board excluded?
Why would he leave it? There are those who will always want to fish in troubled waters. These are the political positions of groups opposed to the Council of the Legislative.
– The four members are ready to continue?
This is the mission that all members democratically entrusted to us.
-In recent weeks, dialogues have been known, at least controversial, from a cat called La Botica in which he participates. What is your defense?
I assume that there is a private conversation that is exposed publicly, which affects the individual rights of each member of this discussion. These are political conversations. As the spokesman for Fuerza Popular said, the excuses presented are worth the terms mentioned by the population and the authorities. This is a disabled chat that has been integrated by the political commission.
– Beyond the private character or the public interest, the level of dialogue of the majority in this political coordination attracts attention.
And everyone was responsible for the terms expressed. Milagros Salazar asked for a public apology and other spokesmen, but did not say so. This is a lesson learned and I doubt that it will happen again.
– Did he feel comfortable taking part in such dialogues?
Nobody can be comfortable with these expressions.
– After the crisis, Fuerza Popular must rearm its political commission and the national executive committee (CEN)?
Keiko Fujimori has already announced that the party is entering a period of reorganization. A national congress will have to be convened so that the bases define the new members of this NEC. But I prefer not to meddle with internal problems.
MP Miguel Torres said in an interview with El Comercio that Ana Herz and Pier Figari should no longer hold political office. Do you agree with him?
Obviously, if a reorganization is to take place in Fuerza Popular, it must be deep.
-Include advisers Ana Herz and Pier Figari?
I think I have been clear.
– Do you think that the management of these accounts for Force 2011 was well done?
The worst thing we can do in democracy is to criminalize politics. The presumption of innocence must always prevail. I have not witnessed or participated in the game during those years. This will have to be determined by the process. However, it seems to me that an extreme and excessive step is to send someone to jail for making unfounded comments from a third party.
– Why a judicial decision, erroneous or not, would constitute a "criminalization of politics"?
Because, for example, using political coordination in a cat to blame organized crime on members of Congress seems to me an excess.
-The cat is a tangential element. There are contributors who say they have not contributed, protected witnesses, collaborators, among others.
It does not matter, all these types of statements follow a research process. If it is possible to determine responsibilities, this is sanctioned.
-No politician can not be punished for alleged crimes to avoid falling into the "criminalization of politics"?
It's just that I did not want to say that. I mean that a politician can not be persecuted or punished for his opinions, whether in an interview or through a discussion.
– Keiko Fujimori is, for you, a political prisoner?
No, we live in a democracy. It is a weak democracy, with weak institutions, but in Peru, there are no political prisoners.
– Do you believe in striking rumors about an alleged plan to give a coup d'etat?
Not at all. Every week, a different psychosocial comes out. It is good that President Vizcarra sent a message dispelling this kind of doubt.
– Do you see any similarities between President Vizcarra and Nicolás Maduro, like his colleague Tamar Arimborgo?
No. I hope that these comments disappear and that we understand that the only way to move the country forward is in-depth dialogue and mutual respect.
Editorial note: on the interview of the President of the Congress, Daniel Salaverry
The Congress President, Daniel Salaverry, used his social networks this morning to point out that one of his responses to the interview given to this newspaper, highlighted by the fact that the cover of our print edition of the newspaper was not the same. Today, Sunday, November 4, had been badly modified.
Specifically, Mr. Salaverry said on his Twitter account: "The coverage of @elcomercio changes today my comments, my complete answer was:" We live in a weak democracy, with weak institutions. I want to think and I want to believe that in Peru there are no political prisoners. "
The version published by El Comercio reads as follows:
"Keiko Fujimori is, for you, a political prisoner?
No, we live in a democracy. It is a weak democracy, with weak institutions, but in Peru, there are no political prisoners. "
As a result of the above, El Comercio initiated a thorough internal investigation to clarify what had happened.
For this, he contacted the author of the interview, the journalist Diego Chirinos, and with Mr. Salaverry.
Once the above review is completed, we can establish the following:
1. The interview took place at the office of the President of the Congress on Saturday, November 3, between 12:30 pm and 1:30 pm
2. At 3:46 pm, Mr. Salaverry called the interviewer by telephone to ask him to remove a series of slogans he had repeated during the interview to better structure his responses. Mr. Chirinos accepted his request in good faith.
3. As part of this review process, the interviewer modified Mr. Salaverry's original response, the same as that expressed by him in his Twitter account.
This newspaper considers that this edition was a mistake in that it goes beyond the purely formal aspects that Mr. Salaverry asked to clarify, changing the meaning of his remarks. In any case, it would have been wise to put the question again to the interviewee in a subsequent communication to avoid any confusion.
El Comercio deeply regrets what happened and apologizes to Mr Salaverry and his readers for this mistake. In this regard, it undertakes to carry out a thorough review of its internal processes in order to prevent such situations from recurring and to adopt the corresponding measures in this particular case. We have a commitment to the truth and the readers for over 179 years. It is a contract that is renewed every day and to which we can not fail.
Source link
