Controversy Erupts Over PPD Senators’ Attempt to Strike Deal with Quiroz on Mega-Reform

Original article: «La embarraron”: la lluvia de críticas a los senadores del PPD que casi fraguan pacto con Quiroz por la megareforma

The Frustrated Agreement of PPD Senators with Quiroz on the Mega-Reform

The proposed agreement between a group of PPD senators and Finance Minister Jorge Quiroz aimed at advancing the mega-reform has sparked a wave of criticism, highlighting the significant political fallout from a negotiation that nearly fractured the opposition. It was not all PPD senators who engaged in the discussions; the key figures involved were Pedro Araya (Antofagasta), Ricardo Celis (Araucanía), and Loreto Carvajal (Ñuble). However, it was the backlash from the rest of the progressive bloc that underscored the poor judgment, as evidenced by the minister’s subsequent position, undermining the legitimacy of the deal.

Amid the backlash from the opposition, Senator Pedro Araya defended the agreement by asserting it was a «good deal» and pledged to uphold his commitments, as reported by Tele 13.

In contrast, PPD Senator Ximena Órdenes distanced herself from the announced agreement, stating that she neither participated in nor endorsed the public understanding: «The press conference indicating that we as a bench have reached an agreement with the Government of Chile on the mega-reform does not represent me. I have not reached any agreement,» the lawmaker declared in a post on social media platform X.

Meanwhile, DC Senator Iván Flores labeled his PPD colleagues, Loreto Carvajal and Ricardo Celis, as «sellouts» following the initial deal they had reached: “It seems that the government has entered a free market now in politics, buying or selling something; we do not know what the price was for the PPD to sell themselves in this government’s attempts,” Flores remarked.

The discontent was immediate and widespread. Senator Vlado Mirosevic (PL) termed the decision a grave error: “The PPD messed up, openly… We cannot lend votes to such an extreme lumberjack reform.” This criticism was echoed by Senator Daniel Núñez (PC), who asserted that “it is a very bad deal that breaks a fundamental principle we had reinforced this week with the party presidents, which was to act united.” The message was clear: “No one alone has the strength to stop this.”

The danger of this individual maneuver lies in the legitimacy it grants to the government’s flagship project. The president of the Broad Front, Constanza Martínez, argued that the PPD senators “made a mistake because they are providing a framework of legitimacy to a reform that is disastrous.” This sentiment was shared by Senator Daniela Cicardini (PS), who described the agreement as a “bad picture” that would historically weigh on them.

What nearly transpired was a dismantling of the opposition’s strategy, which had already planned to challenge the initiative in the Constitutional Court (TC). The agreement meant PPD senators would withdraw their support for the legal challenge in exchange for a reduction in the duration of tax invariability. This move caused a rift within the PPD, where even its president, Raúl Soto, was unaware of the negotiations, revealing a deep internal division. Various regional offices of the party also distanced themselves.

Criticism also targeted Minister Quiroz. Representative Daniel Manouchehri (PS) slammed the official, claiming that “he doesn’t even know the name of the senator with whom he forged the agreement.” This statement underscores the prevailing climate of distrust and the perception that the deal was an attempt to fracture the opposition, giving the government a tactical advantage in the final stages of legislative processing.

Although the PPD senators ultimately retracted their agreement, the incident left a bitter political lesson: the public exposure of disorganization and the fragility of compromises. The wave of criticism not only highlighted the risks of negotiating solo but also raised alarms about the dangers of yielding to a government that, according to critics, “concedes something marginal but retains the core of the reform.”