Introduction: The Constructivist Statesman
Eduardo Frei Montalva (1911–1982) embodied a unique model of negotiating leadership in Chilean political history, combining Christian democratic principles with reformist pragmatism. His negotiation style—developed during his presidency (1964–1970) and his role as an opponent to Allende’s government—offers a paradigmatic case of how to articulate structural changes through institutional dialogue in highly polarized contexts.

Doctrinal Foundations of His Negotiating Approach:
a) Political Humanism:
His formation in Christian social doctrine provided him with an ethical negotiation framework based on:

• The concept of the “common good” as the ultimate horizon
• The search for “third ways” between capitalism and socialism
• The conviction that “politics is the art of making what is necessary possible” (a quote he often cited from Jacques Maritain)

b) The Doctrine of Structural Reforms:
He developed a gradualist negotiating methodology for profound changes:

• Rigorous technical diagnostics (e.g., preliminary studies for agrarian reform)
• The construction of cross-party agreements
• Stage-by-stage implementation with adjustment mechanisms

c) Theory of Dialogue as Institutional Architecture:
For Frei, political negotiation was not merely tactical but a constitutive element of the democratic system, as reflected in his “policy of agreements” with the conservative opposition and the left.

Essential Characteristics of Frei Montalva’s Style:

The Method of “Progressive Convergences”:
He developed a unique negotiating technique to advance reforms in a hostile Congress:

• Identification of “non-negotiable minimums” in each sector
• Construction of ad hoc majorities for each project
• Use of “framework laws” that allowed for later adjustments

Domestic Diplomacy:
His ability to build bridges between antagonistic actors was demonstrated through:

• Weekly dinners with opposition leaders at his Hindenburg residence
• The system of “mixed technical commissions” for key projects
• The creation of the Ministry of the Interior as a true “domestic chancellery”

The Language of National Unity:
He developed a negotiation discourse that transcended ideological divisions:

• Systematic use of the inclusive “we”
• References to shared national symbols
• Constant appeals to the “national interest” as a higher framework

Key Strategies in Complex Negotiations:
The “Chileanization” of Copper (1967):
He demonstrated mastery by negotiating simultaneously with:

• American companies (pressure through technical studies)
• Nationalists (offering gradual participation)
• Business sectors (ensuring legal stability)

Agrarian Reform:
He applied his “layered negotiation” method:

• Agreement with the National Society of Agriculture regarding mechanisms
• Pact with the left on expropriation percentages
• Compensations negotiated on a case-by-case basis

The 1967 Crisis:
In the face of the first major social discontent, he implemented:

• Sectorial “dialogue tables”
• Reshaping of the cabinet by including independent technicians
• Use of media to directly explain the measures

Innovative Instruments:
The “Staged Commitments” System:
Negotiated documents with:

• General public commitments
• Confidential technical annexes
• Periodic review clauses

The “Direct Presidential Diplomacy”:
He personally visited:

• 156 localities in his first year (a record at the time)
• Factories in conflict to negotiate on-site
• Universities to engage in dialogue with the youth opposition

The Use of Experts as Mediators:
He created interdisciplinary technical teams that:

• Translated political conflicts into technical language
• Generated multiple options for each negotiation
• Evaluated the impacts of potential agreements

Limitations and Challenges:
a) The Paradox of the Reformist Center:
His centrist position earned him criticism from:

• The right (for “opening the floodgates to Marxism”)
• The left (for “timid reformism”)

b) Overload of the Negotiation System:
The multiplicity of dialogue tables saturated the institutional capacity, leading to what he called “agreement fatigue.”

c) The Speed Dilemma:
His gradualism clashed with expectations of rapid change, generating what analysts called “the Frei gap” between real achievements and expectations.

The Legacy for Contemporary Political Negotiation:

a) Model of Pact-Based Reformism:
He demonstrated that structural changes can be implemented through:

• Institutional negotiation
• Respect for the existing legal framework
• Inclusion of diverse actors

b) Governance Techniques in Divided Contexts:
His experience anticipated current challenges of:

• Minority governments
• Political fragmentation
• Accelerated social demands

c) Negotiating Ethics:
His principle of “loyalty to one’s word,” even with adversaries, set a standard in Chilean politics.

Epilogue: The Relevance of the Frei Method:
In times of institutional distrust, Frei Montalva’s negotiating style offers lessons on how to build sustainable agreements without sacrificing deep transformations. His conviction that “democracy is the art of negotiating the future without betraying the present” continues to resonate as a guide for reformist leadership in the 21st century.