Instead of polarization, Chile needs a great National Agreement for development and quality democracy

By: Ricardo Israel - 22/09/2024

Boric's government failed. Almost nothing remains of the ambitious programme of transformations, nor of the supposed moral superiority with which they came to power. They quickly lost the majority support they had obtained in the second round, demonstrating that the votes they had added to those obtained in the first round were, in fact, borrowed votes. They played their luck with the constitutional convention and Chileans rejected the refoundation of Chile.

From half of the votes he has been reduced to 1/3, which will surely be confirmed in the municipal elections that will take place next month, which is not bad for him, since, being a young man, it gives him political capital to reinvent himself and try again in the future. However, for now there is no immediate continuity for this government and an example of the failure is that the most viable candidate for the left would be none other than former president Bachelet and not someone from the coalition currently in power.

It has been a learning experience in which voters have realized the cost of a bad election in which people vote based on emotion over reason and a narrative that prevails over facts. And Boric has even been fortunate internationally, since his position on Venezuela has been well received, despite the fact that in the past he was an enthusiastic Chavista and the Chilean opposition tells him to do what he has not done, which is to recognize the victory of Edmundo González, and that Cuba and Fidel continue to be the great taboo of Latin American progressivism and there has never been a word of criticism. However, the experience of government has allowed him to change his mind on many things, except on his anti-Semitism, demonstrating how persistent humanity's oldest phobia is.

Even though it may seem strange, his government was saved from a bigger problem, since the common sense of the voters allowed the draft constitution he wanted to be defeated by a resounding 62%, as was a right-wing project of the opposite sign the following year. By rejecting the rupture constitution, the Chileans did something else, which was to save Chile, at least the Chile that had been the fruit of two centuries of evolution.

The failure of the current government is not unprecedented, but the fact of terms not being extended is old. Thus, in the last century, between 1972 and 1973, the government alternatives varied from election to election, with the exception of the Popular Front, which was an exception. Although it had the particularity of having been one of the three that the world knew, the other two having ended in tragedy in those same years, Spain in civil war and France in humiliating defeat by Nazi Germany.

Almost without exception, dissatisfaction prevailed at the end of the periods. This cycle ended in 1973 with the greatest polarization that Chile has ever known, the coup d'état and the terrible violation of human rights that the country has still not managed to overcome completely, half a century later. It was also a period with a lot of ideological and political influence from abroad, including the Cold War.

However, Chile was able to overcome its divisions, reach an agreement on democracy and the market, and from 1990 onwards, begin a process of transition to democracy that gave the country the best decades it had ever known, without having signed any document, only clarity around those points, that is, two objectives and a deep appreciation of the democracy of agreements and the understanding of the importance of dialogue and consensus for the progress of societies.

Since economic reforms that had been initiated not in democracy but in dictatorship were maintained, it must be said as it was, that in Chile a capitalist modernization process took place with growth of the middle classes, where for the first time individual progress responded more to the market than to the State.

The figures show us that Chile did well, since it went from being a middle-class country to leading Latin America in economic growth and human development index, as well as according to figures from both the World Bank and ECLAC, for example, between 1990 and 2018 extreme poverty decreased from 39% to 8.6%.

All of this would change abruptly in October 2019 when unprecedented violence in the streets overwhelmed the government and the police and put the very continuity of the democratic system at risk. What happened to Chile? I asked myself and I was asked, and the truth is that I still do not have a good answer, what happened to many, including the media and people very close to me whom I sincerely appreciate, since I was not so much scared by the violence as by the acceptance it received.

Polarization and division became part of the daily horizon again and a true electoral lottery was entered into between 2019 and 2023, where voters changed their minds from one vote to the next, choosing opposing proposals and candidates, one after the other and this one after the next, which is reflected in the transition from a center-right government like Piñera's to the current progressive government of Boric.

There has often been an excess of intellectual arrogance with the false idea, which has done so much damage, that there would be a supposed “exceptionality of the country”, which has been reflected in ideas such as the one prior to 1973 “that there were no coups d’état in Chile” or the more recent one prior to the outbreak of violence that “in Chile the institutions always work”, when in reality what the country can feel legitimate pride in is something of lesser importance but easily verifiable, such as the capacity to channel the conflict and reach legal agreements, and when politicians fail, the voting people save the situation, as occurred with the two votes where two referendums rejected two constitutional proposals, above all, the refoundational delirium that characterized the first.

I have a book in print about these two failed constitutional processes, what I call the “360-degree turn” since it was a perfect circle, from the moment that two processes of opposite signs, one that wanted to change (almost) everything and another that did not want to change (almost) anything, returned Chile exactly to the starting point, the current constitution, which does not bear the signature of General Pinochet as was lied about time and again, but since 2005 that of former President Lagos and all his ministers.

Therefore, Boric's failure is closing this stage. He came to change everything and has not done much, neither in what was feared nor in what was hoped for. However, the learning may have been costly, but, for the same reason, the country may have achieved a net gain, in the appreciation of democracy as a search for great agreements. Perhaps the path to a Pact for Chile can be started, which ideally seeks to address two points and only two, development as an attainable goal and quality democracy, both objectives to be fulfilled through the best public policies, since there is now in Chile as well as in the world, much evidence of what works well as well as of what has never worked, since there are paths that bring us closer to socio-economic development and quality democracy and others that distance us from both.

By the way, in democracy it is also required that the electorate be based on reason over emotion and facts over narrative, otherwise countries could enter the path towards the precipice that Chile experienced, where there is acceptance of violence for social change.

Therefore, politicians are asked to act with seriousness and prudence in order to ensure stability. Hence the importance of basic agreements on following proven paths of success in generating resources to finance collective rights, with the gradualness that makes them sustainable through economic growth and productivity, with the demand, apparently by the majority, of a sustainable increase in equality and not of the equity that some recommend, since the objective is for everyone to have similar tools to be able to participate, but a result that favors some to the detriment of others should not be guaranteed in advance, only for identity reasons such as sex or race.

For a non-quality democracy, it is not enough to say that institutions function, but that they should do so in a good way, solving problems instead of creating them and with an electoral system that allows the consolidation of solid alternatives, instead of the current system that rewards fragmentation and allows the existence of many (too many) parties, inherited from the work of the so-called Engel Commission, which simply did not give the expected result, perhaps due to the predominance of members who did not have much experience or knowledge about the real functioning of politics. Today, fewer parties are needed and a system that allows a greater share of governability.

A commitment to reforming the State is also required, an antiquated and ossified machinery, whose updating is key to accepting that we are living in the 21st century and not remaining attached to the ghosts of the Popular Unity or Pinochet.

In Chile today, images of coups or property expropriations do not predominate, but there are real fears of various insecurities, from the fear of rampant crime to not having access to health care or a low pension upon retirement, all concrete reasons that explain by themselves the need for a great Pact.

In other words, through the Democracy of Agreements, economic growth, political stability, international integration and poverty reduction can be better consolidated, for which it is imperative that duties figure as much as rights, that the law be respected and all forms of impunity be rejected, including white-collar corruption, desires that are shared by those who were born in the territory as well as the hundreds of thousands of migrants who have made Chile their home in recent decades, and who can now vote.

The truth is that a path is required that, in order to be lasting, requires dialogue and respect instead of confrontation and tension, and equal requirements between rights and duties, as, moreover - although little known - both are included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, approved by the UN in 1948, rights that in an admirable synthesis range from opinions to property.

We live in a time where the old (and useful) characterization of left and right is becoming less and less relevant, including in France, the country where it originated in the revolutionary era of the 18th century to describe where the supporters of the king (right) and those who wanted a profound change (left) sat.

Unlike other past attempts, full transparency is needed, not only in that it is always known that it has been agreed, but also that it is put to a referendum. Ethics are needed, a lot of ethics, an ethics of principles rather than values, since the latter are historically changeable, while principles are less in quantity and are more solid and rarely gaseous or liquid. Above all, caution is required, since Chile has changed its mind with enormous speed in recent years, and Octobristism, as a name for the violence that appeared in October 2019, still has supporters, although in smaller numbers, but waiting for the right moment to reappear.

I have the feeling that a veil is falling over Chile, a thick one, but one that allows us to see the lost agenda again. Personally, I am enthusiastic because all my public activity has revolved around these concepts, whether in academia, the media, teaching or candidacies for public office, in the sense of believing that what is truly distinctive about democracy is the ability to peacefully resolve conflict through the proven and unique ability to reach major agreements through consensus and dialogue.

If this Pact lasted for several governments, that is, a reasonable 25 to 30 years, the stability and predictability that would be obtained would be an achievement, not only for Chile but also for the entire region, where no country has managed to make this qualitative leap towards elusive development as well as a quality democracy with low levels of corruption. Argentina could have achieved it before General Perón diverted the path. Venezuela also had the resources, but could not do it even before Chávez arrived to blow up the path.

Although its best years were behind it and doubts had set in, Chile itself also seemed to be on the right path, until violence broke out on October 18, 2019, at a time when Chile still believed it could approach Portugal in terms of per capita income at the bottom of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries, the club of rich countries, and was preparing to host two very important world summits, which had to be suspended. The three nations had their chance, but they squandered it, largely due to the fault of their own voters.

My argument is that, just as the transition to democracy failed to re-enchant Chileans by renewing its success after Boric's current failure, Chile could once again find its way to success, in addition to honoring those voters who saved the country from a constitutional stray from which it would have been difficult to recover, since the extensive transitional provisions ensured immediate application, based on constitutional supremacy.

Although the destructive pace of Octoberism also practically made the political center, which had already been severely affected, disappear, when both the social Christians and the social democrats were not capable of defending the great achievements of the Chilean transition, the lost path could be recovered. And although they are not seen today, it is to be hoped that those leaders and sectors capable of producing a dialogue in search of solutions will appear, similar to those who were present with patriotism in both sectors, after the 1988 plebiscite that said no to General Pinochet's attempt to remain in power.

At that time, the agreements on democracy and the market gave the country one of the most beneficial periods in its history, despite the great differences that existed between them at that time, more so than today. If the country plays its cards well now, with conviction and intelligence, it can move on to a higher stage, a Pact for Chile, where instead of polarization, democracy through agreements is recovered to become the first country in Latin America to decide, without complexes, to advance towards socio-economic development and democracy through agreements, that of quality.

This type of achievement can only be achieved in democratic countries with well-functioning republican institutions, and this can be of great help. Although it does not always manage to reach a safe harbor when there is social turmoil, Chile has demonstrated more than once its ability to channel conflict, transforming it into agreements.

In conclusion, of course, many things have been achieved through competition, but humanity has achieved even greater success through collaboration, starting with the fact that the very survival of our species of homo sapiens is due to this, just as language and social institutions came into being.

Nothing more, but also nothing less.

@israelzipper

Master and PhD in Political Science (University of Essex), Bachelor of Laws (University of Barcelona), Lawyer (University of Chile), former presidential candidate (Chile, 2013)

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