OPINION COLUMN Our OPINION section is an open space, so the content expressed in this column is the exclusive responsibility of its author, and does not necessarily reflect the editorial line of BioBioChile. The Viña Festival issued an unofficial, unofficial public statement confirming the event in the previous week. Who validated that procedure, that of informing the world without a qualified signatory for it? This speaks of an overwhelming institutional deterioration. Featherweight has been discriminated against. Has Featherweight been discriminated against? Featherweight has been censored. Has Featherweight been censored? Featherweight has been confirmed for the festival. Has Featherweight been confirmed for the festival? The 'organization' of the 2024 Viña Festival has said all this. But is all that true? Or is it possible that Peso Pluma has not been discriminated against, that they have not sought to censor him and that he has not even been ratified for Viña? Is it possible that the entire statement delivered on Thursday, January 11 by someone who claims to be the Viña del Mar Festival is not a statement from the festival? I will argue in this column that none of the statements in the Viña del Mar Festival statement (except the artist's resume) are true. I will outline some points to account for the weight that should be given to that fact. I will start with the last point. With national and international scope: the debate began The statement from the Viña del Mar Festival confirming the participation of Peso Pluma was in response to last week's column in this section and to the requirements of different national authorities, councilors, deputies and other authorities. When I wrote the column, I assumed it might open a debate. But I never imagined that it would be news throughout Latin America and the United States, also including Spain. In Mexico the debate has been important. It also coincided with the events that occurred in Ecuador, which occurred hours after publishing the column. Furthermore, an unfortunate event linked to the increase in violence and the constant use of weapons ended the life of a girl last weekend. The President declared that “we are not going to normalize” crimes like that. What does normalize mean? The President is certainly referring to the second meaning: stabilizing a previously existing condition and turning it into a norm. That is to say, the President will reasonably fight to prevent this from becoming something common, statistically frequent. 'Normalize' is also being used (but the RAE does not say it) to refer to assuming the manifestations of drug trafficking and its culture, as something acceptable as a fact of the cause against which it is necessary to operate with acceptance. The truth is that all this context made the column grow in a surprising way. Its readership was far above normal and its impact, not to mention, has been surprising. Because? I am a sociologist and the answer is obvious: an important part of society cares about this. And because? In my research it is always evident that there is helplessness in the face of drug trafficking, a feeling that is not only due to the fear of its existence, but also due to its penetration into the home of each mother and father. There are those who are generally afraid of the risks of organized crime, but there are people who are afraid that their own children could enter organized crime. If the column represented the debate in the intensity in which we experienced it, it is because an area of social problems that is not resolved is at stake there. Our state action today is strongly restricted to confiscating drugs and disrupting gangs. But there is no understanding of the related social problems. The importance that the topic took speaks clearly of one thing: this discussion is important. The Featherweight problem is cultural but also material Many have criticized the Frente Amplio and the new left for their abandonment of material problems to move on to post-material ones. Among the postmaterial problems are cultural issues. But in this case something incredible happens: the Featherweight problem is cultural, but it is also material. Thousands of young people in our countries are torn between two routes: the one that will make you a part of the productive machinery of your country, probably without a relevant position; or the one that will turn you into a drug trafficking soldier, where you will not have a relevant position unless luck and your ability to accept risk allow otherwise. In the first option you will probably live and die poor. In the second you will have a much better life in economic terms and much worse in all other ways. But of course, given that it is a consumer society that shelters us, is the second such a bad option? I will return to this point in another column. I now continue with the approach and the reasons for having done so. The story of this column was like this In the month of October 2023, I had an activity where, together with Joaquín Lavín, we talked with university students regarding our proposal for common strategic and political minimums for Chile. When we left, we had to travel, for the same theme, outside of Santiago and we took a taxi together to the airport. In the taxi, Joaquín Lavín told me about the murder of a narco-influencer (Sabrina Durán) and showed me the images showing the murder. He impacted me enormously. It was another sign of a radical change in the conflict and organizational structures of drug trafficking. That same day I told him about Peso Pluma and the Viña Festival, what I knew about the subject and the seriousness of accepting that in state-owned spaces, with the use of public resources, the drug world can honor itself and demonstrate its power. We talked at length and even Joaquín Lavín wrote a column on the subject on November 9. His analysis focused on narcoculture and its growth, while calling for a public debate. I couldn't write at that time because I didn't have the time to do a more detailed review of the singer's story and lyrics. At that moment I was preparing my defense against the dismissal with which they tried to sanction me in the Usach. Therefore, I waited. As soon as I had time I made the revisions that seemed pertinent and I was in a position to write the column. Seven days ago I published, as I said, the aforementioned column. I argued that the State cannot fight against drug trafficking on the one hand and at the same time provide public resources to make its apology. It's a simple matter. If the State raises the need to reduce obesity and a sedentary lifestyle in childhood, wouldn't citizens protest if food rations with obesogenic compounds were provided with public money? This is not only thinkable, it is not only theory. Last year there was a controversy over the dissemination of two approved theses that defended pedophilia at the University of Chile. It was a scandal. It was considered inappropriate that a couple of theses advocating pedophilia had been produced at Chile's main public university. Why was a summary called? And why did the university quickly declare that these texts were not in accordance with its educational model? Because it understands that by violating the highest values of the State, it must restrict to some degree its right to freedom of thought and expression. Even this condemnation from the highest authorities of the university occurred without a detailed analysis of the facts, that is, they did not wait for a report that said that the thesis did not contain sufficient academic foundations to present such a clear position in favor of a crime. In this regard, this same government spoke at that time: the Undersecretary of Children, Yolanda Pizarro, described the events as a “violation of the rights of children and adolescents.” A dubious public statement without a signatory On Friday, January 12, I issued a public statement taking responsibility for what I consider a shameful treatment of the problem by the authorities responsible for this matter. I did it because I assumed that “the organization of the Viña Festival has confirmed the participation of Peso Pluma”, as I indicated. Well, it seems that is not the case. And the fact is that, even though there is a public statement that claims to be from the organization of the Viña Festival, it turns out that it is not official and it cannot be because, if we take the administrative procedures of the State of Chile seriously, that statement does not exist. The Festival Promotion Commission and the absence of administrative acts Given that the design of the relationship between public and private actors at the time of their collaboration is produced based on formal procedures, for the participation of Peso Pluma to be confirmed, the Viña del Mar Festival Promotion Commission, an entity of articulation between public and private actors, between the Municipality of Viña del Mar and those who have bid. Well, it turns out that "the commission has not been convened," according to councilor Sandro Puebla, who emphasized that none of the three councilors who make up this commission have originally validated the list of guests. It is also not known if those who were not consulted were the councilors or if the mayor was not informed either. Since this is not a joke and it is not a mere act between private parties, it turns out that there are procedures enforceable by contract and that are related to agreements made by public organizations, with their due administrative acts; that are not completed. This means a strange thing: that it can be said with equal legitimacy that the Viña del Mar Festival has its entire lineup of guest artists confirmed and the opposite can be said, since according to the festival's own rules, no guest artist is confirmed by the corresponding entities so that their participation has been made official. It is worth pointing out the sloppiness of informing the press of the group of invited artists without having completed the process. And even worse. The seriousness of the event is multiplied because, it is already evident, the formal process was never intended to end. Obviously no one would consult the Promotion Commission if the artists were approved, since there was no longer time to manage possible problems in this regard. It was just done. Apparently the task of selecting the artists for the festival was carried out by the contracted production company (a logical matter), but that selection had to be a proposal. And it's not because it occurs to me, but because it's in the contract. Did the company breach the contract? Maybe yes, but maybe not. Were the channels that bid for the contract missing? Maybe yes, even probably yes, but there is a possibility that it is not so. Did the Municipality fail in its obligations? That is indisputable. If the process defined by the contract, designed as bases for the bidding, establishes control procedures and these were not executed or required by the public entity, there is undoubtedly liability. Not only was there not enough zeal regarding the nature of the issue. It was more serious, since the procedure would have been breached (if we listen to the members of the Commission themselves, those are the facts) and at this moment we would be waiting for the resolution of the aforementioned commission that is to be held on January 17, according to Councilor Lues reports in a statement issued today. That is, the Viña Festival issued an unofficial, unofficial public statement confirming the event in the previous week. Who validated that procedure, that of informing the world without a qualified signatory for it? This speaks of an overwhelming institutional deterioration. There are many issues to discuss in the aftermath of this column. There is time left to address each aspect in adequate detail. In this column I will only go a little further into the use of words by that statement written by no one knows who and supported by no one knows who. Censorship and discrimination? In the statement of the supposed organization of the Viña Festival, two words are mentioned against those of us who raise the need to review the decision to have the Peso Pluma show: censorship and discrimination. Regarding censorship, everything I read with some development accusing about 'censorship' takes over the famous second meaning of 'censorship' by the RAE (prohibition ruling on a work or artist). Clearly not what I wrote in last week's column. I didn't say that he couldn't sing in Chile or that his music was banned. I simply said (using meaning 1 of the RAE for censorship) that I have serious objections, which lead to the disapproval of the event, since I see it as illogical to define by the State of Chile large objectives in all its powers of the State to being able to protect the country from drug trafficking and, meanwhile, use public resources to promote it. Whoever wrote that text issued on Thursday, January 11, added in addition to the already mentioned word 'censorship' the concept of 'discrimination'. That is, I and other people would be discriminating against Featherweight. Although the verb discriminate is synonymous with discern (because when analyzing we separate elements and discriminate what is not pertinent), it is evident that the use of the document's writer wanted to accuse something more serious: separation, segregation, xenophobia. I demand an explanation (I quote Condorito). I'm sorry I don't know who to demand it from, of course, since we already know that the festival organization's declaration is not official. And here is a non-trivial point. The reason why texts and bureaucratic decisions must be signed is so that the authorship or co-responsibility of what is written is clear. And an administrative, legal act, a political act and even a social act has weight when there are actors who are responsible and can explain the details in the use of words and the logic of reasoning. An act of this nature must be seriously subjected to public debate. When putting a word in an act of power, it is necessary that the foundations be noted. It is also necessary to know the motivations. And without foundation there is no motivation: if I want to keep Featherweight, but I don't say why, then the motivation is empty. Cristiano Ronaldo took out the soft drinks from the counter at the Euro 2021 press conference and pronounced the word 'water' to make it clear that these types of drinks should not be promoted when at a sporting event. UEFA's response was a reproach in consideration of the money that sponsorship for the event implies. Coca Cola simply said that everyone had the right to drink whatever drink they wanted. Are our authorities more in agreement with regulating food advertising, with accepting the sponsors' conditions, or is their argument that everyone chooses what they want, period? After years of saying that choosing is not the only relevant value in society, today they tell us that it is. After saying that regulations are important, today they say they are not. A true case study The edges of this discussion are extensive and very interesting. You may consider this as a case study. The left has struggled for years to discuss the tendencies towards a purely police view of security. But today he denigrates a discussion about drug trafficking culture and wants to close the issue within limited limits. It surprises me. And it already happens to many people that nothing surprises us. Just a story to finish. In September 2023, the cancellation of concerts in Tijuana, Culiacán, Querétaro, León, Puebla and Acapulco was announced. Mexican authorities commented that this happened because conflicts between gangs are transferred to the associated artists. The situation was complex for Peso Pluma, nominated in multiple categories at the MTV Awards. Apparently they deliberately waited for the channel's event to end to communicate the suspensions, but the rumors arrived previously. There are those in the industry who maintain that it was a factor so that, after nominating him for all the relevant awards, he did not win any. The life of Peso Pluma is like that of the 'soldiers' of the cartel bosses. It's exciting, full of money and dangerous. His task in the bulk of the songs is simple: give another bath of legitimacy, beyond what money provides, to those who do the hard work in the drug cartels. Thinking about it, Featherweight's life is sad. Provide services to drug traffickers first and then, to make matters worse, be censored and discriminated against by an academic. Who would have imagined such misfortune? Featherweight is a thin and light young man. In boxing jargon he is a featherweight, a fighter in a low weight category (approximately 55 kilos). In the artist's world he may have been considered a weakling. But since the suspensions of the 2023 concerts, Peso Pluma has gained weight. He hasn't gained weight, but without a doubt he is being so heavy that perhaps he is already a liability. For Viña del Mar, for now and whatever happens, it already is.