The sovereign people have just pronounced themselves and their vote was to reject the draft of a new constitution. And not any difference. For Chile it was overwhelming. Above what was expected. Now he must be heard. Even if it sounds redundant, first things first, that is, for no reason what has already been rejected should be repeated. That is the first decision, and the only one that corresponds in a democracy.
What was rejected was both the constitutional process and its constitutional draft, the proposal for a radical refoundation of the country and the imposition of a model contrary to its bicentennial history and evolution.
The country remains divided and polarized, and the question is what should be done? There is only one answer: any solution must be based on republican institutions, since that was what was requested in the plebiscite, to approve the proposal for a new constitution or reject it, which meant continuing along the existing institutional path. Rejected the proposal, the reforms that you want, but without violence and through the path established by law.
The rejection is a sufficient indication that they do not want to go down the path of the constitutional convention again, since then as now, the constitutional powers were in Congress. They were only temporarily delegated, and the country has already ruled on the matter. That shortcut has already been closed.
The only path that must be taken is that of respect for the rule of law, since the law and the constitution provide that in case of winning the rejection, the current constitution is maintained, which bears the signature of President Lagos. In other words, in the process that has just culminated in the plebiscite, there was only a delegation of constituent power, and therefore it was a “convention” and not a constituent “assembly”.
That power has returned to Congress, and in this regard, there is nothing to discuss, nothing. The only and great problem is the very bad opinion that citizens have of that political class, and in a way that is transversal, since it reaches all sectors and parties, so it is not appropriate to dress in clothing that is not correspond to him. Hopefully there is no kidnapping by a party, which is nothing but a distortion of democracy. What is required of the political class is that they take advantage of this opportunity to rehabilitate themselves, acting with restraint, serenity, listening to the people and following the rule of law.
The new Congress was elected together with Boric. After the plebiscite, it is this body that must address the constitutional issues, including or starting with those that are still pending. What is needed is to try a different route than the one that was rejected. In other words, seek collaboration instead of confrontation, seek a constitution that is perceived as everyone’s home and not the imposition of the ideological-political program of one sector on the entire country.
The rejected process began with violence, so that threat is still pending like a sword of Damocles, but democratic institutions must not be intimidated and must respond with the force of the law. As there is a new context, street violence should not scare, but if it manifests itself, it should be temporary and limited in scope, so the Democrats should not be intimidated.
In any case, the great pending issue is how to deal with the frustration and anger of broad sectors, which is real. This must be done with the narrative of truth, before the imposition of a story that is often false on the facts, and of emotion on reason.
That is the reality, and in the exercise of its powers, Congress is expected to make a proposal. In this regard, there is a good example, since, in the other plebiscite of historical significance, in 1988 the Chileans said no to General Pinochet’s claim to remain in power, in another refoundation attempt that was also rejected.
The country was then also divided and polarized, but from then on the Chilean transition had the ability to find a consensus based on democracy and the market, which gave Chile some of the best years in its history, from the 90s.
Today, alchemy would be an agreement that would allow access to development and the Welfare State to which one aspires, which must be seen in a positive way, as evidence of the modernizing success that has taken place in Chile. The alchemy is to do it in a way that is sustainable, and the only path of proven success is that of generating resources and adopting public policies that allow financing what is desired, not with magical realism, but seriously and gradually, that requires a growing economy, to which is now added the demand to do so with greater equality.
The road is a Pact for Chile to which all the forces that want it concur, and that leaves out only the anti-democratic forces, which, by the way, are hardly going to want to be. This national agreement requires broad alliances for a great constitutional reform that is for everyone and not just for a group, and, therefore, an important role goes through a key force but today irrelevant, the political center.
As an example, there are issues that should be included yes or yes, since its historical moment has arrived, and although with some delay, there is consensus on the matter. This would be the case of the decentralization and regionalization of the country, as an element of integration and not of separation, unlike what happened in the convention. Also something as necessary as it is pending, multiculturalism and the constitutional recognition of the original peoples, that is, a nation that believes in diversity, and that all the different cultures have a place within the Chilean nation, as occurs in some of the best democracies in the world, which differs from the plurinationality that was rejected, on the basis of the well-founded fear that it could lead to separatism.
This Pact and the constitutional rules of the game must look at the 21st century and not at the issues of 1973, including the subsequent dictatorship. In other words, integrate into the constitution the realities created by a set of transformations that have taken place in Chile and the world, a tribute to what has been successful.
The resulting State must be one that is defined by a Quality Democracy, that is, exactly what is not present in the region; In other words, it is not enough that the institutions work now, but that they must do so in a good way to respond to the citizenry and that they feel interpreted. This also involves accepting something that is difficult in our Latin America, the idea of the market as the best and proven resource allocator. We speak, therefore, of an economy and not of a market society, since, in a democracy, the financial should not be the only thing to consider, as there are areas of social life, where other factors predominate. , starting with ethics.
In today’s Chile there is violence, anomie, but there has also been an expansion of consumption and social mobility, and those who have it clearer are the many Latin Americans who arrive as migrants. There is also an excess of individualism, and various insecurities and fears, starting with the suffering of the victims of the insurrection, still of low intensity, that is being experienced in Araucanía. All reasons that explain by themselves the need for a great Pact.
This new stage that is opening needs to repeat as many times as necessary that President Boric is wrong when he asks for a new constitutional convention, since it does not correspond, neither legally nor politically. It is, furthermore, unethical to repeat what others like Evo Morales and Hugo Chávez did, of insisting again on something rejected in the vote, until it finally works out for them.
On the contrary, since there is no consensus, what is recommended is the only path that simultaneously coincides with the rule of law, democracy and republican institutions, and this lies today in Congress, which will decide whether or not to appoint a Commission of Experts, which contributes what was not in the failed convention. On the one hand, knowledge of what a constitution is and what it is not as a legal document, and on the other, the most important and characteristic of democracy, the willingness to seek agreements, to ensure the peaceful resolution of differences.
The term should not exceed nine months, and a final plebiscite should allow the electorate to manifest itself in a binding manner, as the only sovereign, without putting their hands to the ballot box via parity or reserved seats, using only the essential equality of being all citizens. , and that all votes are worth the same. Learning has been hard and Ayn Rand was right when she warned that “you can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of having ignored reality”.
Now, as the song says, to look to the future with “optimism and faith” for this Pact for Chile, which, personally, is what I have always believed and postulated.
“The opinions published here are the sole responsibility of their author.”
