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

Doctrinal Foundations of His Negotiating Approach:

a) Political Humanism:
His training in Christian social doctrine provided him with an ethical framework for negotiation based on:

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

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

• Rigorous technical diagnosis (e.g., studies prior to the agrarian reform)
• The building of transversal agreements
• Implementation in stages with adjustment mechanisms

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

Essential Characteristics of Frei Montalva’s Style:

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

• Identification of “irreducible minimums” in each sector
• Building 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 manifested in:

• 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 “internal chancery”

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

• Systematic use of the inclusive “we”
• References to shared national symbols
• Constant appeal to the “national interest” as the superior framework

Key Strategies in Complex Negotiations:

The “Chilenization” of Copper (1967):
He demonstrated mastery in negotiating simultaneously with:

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

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

• Agreement with the National Society of Agriculture on mechanisms
• Pact with the left on expropriation percentages
• Negotiated compensations case by case

The 1967 Crisis:
In response to the first major social discontent, he implemented:

• Sectoral “dialogue tables”
• Cabinet reshuffling, including independent technicians
• Use of media to directly explain measures

Innovative Instruments:

The “Escalating Commitments” System:
Negotiated documents with:

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

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 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 possible agreements

Limitations and Challenges:

a) The Paradox of the Reformist Center:
His intermediate position garnered criticism from:

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

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

c) The Dilemma of Speed:
His gradualism clashed with the expectations of accelerated 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 such as:

• Minority governments
• Political fragmentation
• Accelerated social demands

c) Negotiating Ethics:
His principle of “loyalty to the given word,” even with adversaries, established 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 abandoning profound transformations. His conviction that “democracy is the art of negotiating the future without betraying the present” continues to resonate as a compass for reformist leadership in the 21st century.