Paulina Núñez discusses the role of the cabinet and warns: A minister cannot be causing problems for the President

There is no contradiction, according to a letter published in La Tercera on August 29, 2026. The letter, written by Rodrigo Pérez de Arce P., a student at Faro UDD, responds to a debate surrounding Senator Arturo Squella’s stance on constitutional reforms related to security. The letter argues that there is no conflict between providing the state with appropriate tools to combat crime and ensuring these measures remain technically sound and politically stable. Senator Arturo Squella, president of the Republican Party, has been at the center of discussions regarding a proposed constitutional reform aimed at strengthening national security. In recent weeks, he has faced public criticism over his approach, which some argue prioritizes technical precision over immediate citizen concerns. However, the letter challenges this perception, asserting that there is no inherent contradiction between developing effective legal mechanisms and maintaining the integrity of the political system. The writer points out that Senator Squella himself has acknowledged the need for refinement. In response to ongoing public scrutiny, he announced plans to collaborate with fellow senator Longton to propose amendments that would clarify certain clauses within the reform. This move is seen as a step toward addressing concerns while preserving the core objectives of the legislation. The reform, which seeks to enhance the state’s ability to respond to criminal activity, has sparked considerable debate among lawmakers and civil society groups. Some critics argue that the proposal could introduce elements that might destabilize existing legal frameworks, potentially undermining judicial independence or expanding executive power beyond acceptable limits. Others, however, believe that such changes are necessary to address rising crime rates and ensure public safety. According to the letter, the key to successful implementation lies in careful design. It emphasizes that a well-crafted reform is not an obstacle to progress but rather a prerequisite for meaningful change. The author suggests that the process should continue with open dialogue and rigorous review, avoiding the pitfalls of false dichotomies that pit technical expertise against popular demand. Public sentiment has remained divided. While some citizens support the reform as a necessary measure to restore order, others fear that it could lead to authoritarian tendencies or erode democratic principles. Political analysts have noted that the debate reflects broader tensions within the country, particularly around the balance between security and liberty. Senator Squella’s decision to seek input from colleagues signals a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue. Whether this will result in substantial revisions or merely symbolic gestures remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the reform continues to be a focal point of political discourse, with its future likely shaped by further deliberations and public engagement. The letter concludes with a call for continued scrutiny, urging all stakeholders to avoid simplistic solutions and instead pursue a balanced path forward. As the legislative process moves ahead, the outcome of these discussions will play a crucial role in determining the final shape of the reform.