Chile continues to stumble over the constitutional stone

By: Ricardo Israel - 19/02/2023

In 1980 a new constitution was promulgated during the dictatorship, contrary to what is thought, it did not apply with its original wording, since until 1990, what was imposed were its transitory articles and with them it was governed.

In 1988 a plebiscite was held to decide the continuity of General Pinochet in power and the majority rejected it. Chile was able to return to the democratic path, and in the 1990 elections Patricio Aylwin led a successful transition. Previously, another plebiscite had approved fifty-odd constitutional reforms precisely to make this new scenario possible.

In democracy, it became the most reformed constitution in history and in 2005 it came to replace Pinochet and to this day, the signature of President Lagos along with his ministers, and probably the biggest mistake was not having submitted it to referendum for its definitive legitimation.

The problem was that, despite all its changes, many people maintained its origin and the constitutional issue always reappeared like a sword of Damocles.

In October 2018, extreme street violence took place, totally overwhelming the police, so much so that it was feared that the government would not survive. Despite three decades of progress on virtually all indicators, including poverty reduction, there was much dissatisfaction and the narrative that Chile was the kingdom of “neoliberal inequality” prevailed.

Faced with this situation, the political class believed they had found a solution, and based on an offer from Pinera, who surprised them by putting a new constitution on the table that had not been requested, a process was launched that consulted entry plebiscites and exit and the call for a Constitutional Convention to draft and propose a new Constitution. There a new history begins to be written, and in moments of discredit of the political class, 78% vote in favor of new conventionalists who were not part of it. The agreement was that if the exit referendum was rejected, the existing constitution would be maintained.

The Convention failed and his proposal was rejected by a resounding 62%, with a record of electoral participation.

And without paying attention to that result, the political class appeared with a big mistake, since instead of accepting the golden principle of democracy, which is to respect the voice of the people, the idea of "reinterpreting" that decision was imposed. Partidocracy appeared, that is, that disease of democracy, where it is the party directives that take over the process instead of the sovereign.

And that is how this 62% rejection was interpreted as a new opportunity to give a “definitive solution” to the constitutional issue. The problem was that the country now had other priorities, such as a major socioeconomic crisis and a notorious increase in crime.

What corresponded was to respect the institutionality, since both the law and the constitution mandated that the constituent power returned fully to Congress so that it fulfilled its obligation, through the necessary majorities to discuss and approve the reforms that were necessary, if so, all subject to a plebiscite of approval or rejection.

Instead of going down that path, a new party deal turned a deaf ear to such a clear vote to start a new process, one that might have no known end, if the final product were ever to be rejected again.

The Chilean electorate has shown much greater common sense than its representatives, and perhaps proof of this is the true electoral lottery in which the country has recently lived, with totally different results from election to election. Apparently, after the electoral lottery, the partidocracia put the country on the path of what could be a constitutional roulette wheel.

The risk is great. Chile withstood anti-democratic attacks well, but in crisis conditions, the country could move towards radicalization. The parties had little presence in the delirium of the convention, but now their mark is present everywhere. And they still have a very bad image.

In addition, quickly, in a few months, disillusionment with the Broad Front-Communist Party government, headed by Gabriel Boric, predominates, which has failed in practically all indicators, in addition to being tiresome with its arrogance and its supposed moral superiority. They are referred to as a government of "trainees."

The failure has been so great that it has apparently achieved what was considered impossible, the reappearance of one of the great responsible for the Chilean crisis, former president Pinera

With the new process, in the middle of 2023, the convening parties tell the country that Chile would need to move from the agonal phase (from the Greek word that expresses struggle, conflict) to the architectural (construction) phase of politics. Under normal conditions this is good for a country, but not when the party has ignored the voice of the polls. For its part, the government hopes that this constitutional agreement will be the rescue it needs, since if it is approved, the new Magna Carta would have the signature of President Boric.

What is proposed is a strange path, since instead of taking the simple and well-known path of its filing in Congress, a new process was called, strange and full of moorings and nooks and crannies. It is understandable that one does not want to repeat a traumatic experience of extremist predominance, but what is being attempted now may fail, and is also very difficult to understand.

It is called to elect a Constitutional Council of 50 elected members, but it will not decide practically anything important, since it will be surrounded by two non-elected bodies, but with great power, already designated. On the one hand, a Commission of 24 "experts" who are going to be the drafters of the constitutional project and a "Technical Admissibility Committee" whose 14 members are going to be the controlling body of the proposed contents. This scheme is not a definitive solution for the constitutional issue, since it will only solve the partyocracy who dominates the internal one of each sector, be it the left or the right.

And the truth is that with this structure everything can go wrong again, not this time because of its content, since the result will probably be very similar to the constitution that exists today, but because of the questioning of those who have been appointed and who will to compete in the elections. To begin with, due to the strong presence of those close to the big business community compared to other sectors.

The path adopted repeats some of the worst partisan behavior in Chilean democracy, and instead of looking for the best by track record, independence and publications, they also chose people who, even when they manage to be a contribution, will highlight the reason for their presence, which is mainly due to their closeness to those who appointed them, which is known as the political "cuoteo".

In addition to the fact that some valuable people are valuable in other fields and not in the difficult art of writing a constitution, it is repeated among those who are going to go to elections, two types, those who have already been, who had their way as ministers or congressmen in a sometimes distant past, and who were in retirement, highlighting one who was a minister in the 60s, surely selected because the names are known. On the other hand, many of the 348 candidates on 5 lists have run in other elections, thus being serial candidates, election professionals, who ever hope to win one.

And for a country that wants to overcome its cracks, a right-wing party presents a former senator, a well-known defender of the unpresentable Colonia Dignidad.

Finally, the most incomprehensible thing, considering the recent failure of the Convention, is the postulation of people very similar to the one who was a disappointment. This is how the People"s Party presents a 20-year-old candidate, who has no education, who defines himself as a "dissident" who seeks to find the "mystique" of the constitution, and another, from the Broad Front, graduated without work or academic experience, but that highlights what she considers the highlight of her resume, which was "spokesperson for a feminist take."

What can go wrong with this scheme of the Chilean political parties?

The truth is that a lot, as a consequence of not having listened to the voice of the people, who had saved the Chile we knew with their vote.

The voters had solved a serious problem for the country. However, the matches once again complicated an already clarified situation, with a once again reserved prognosis.

And with an unresolved question, what is done if the product is rejected in the referendum, is it tried again or does the process have an end?

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».