Perhaps two of Chile’s most important elections have been plebiscites, and both the model of society and democracy have been at stake. In 1988 the Chileans said NO to the continuity of General Pinochet and on September 4 they must approve or reject the proposal for a new constitution.
My vote is in favour of rejection that day, and I would very much like a better proposal to have come out, but I have no doubts about my decision, since I am convinced that the refoundational project would be very negative. I think that for the triumph of rejection we must not reinvent the wheel but learn from how the authoritarian project of that time was defeated.
In a column written on February 25, 2021, we wondered whether the constituent process would be a missed opportunity, which was effectively due to the predominance of an extreme vision, and that the cult of “independents” had usually ended in Latin America in episodes of populism, authoritarianism, frustration. We also warned about the danger of this deviation from democracy known as partidocracy, where the sovereign is replaced by partisan leaderships, in addition to the fact that in Chile they had very low approval.
Given the multiple shortcomings of the proposal to be plebiscited, two movements have emerged that offer something different, one approves to reform and the other reject to reform. However, it does not matter, since if the Approval wins, a reform becomes almost impossible, since there is almost no real possibility, since there is an itinerary established in the transitional provisions, of the many reforms necessary to materialize the transformation, including very strict deadlines in Congress, in addition to the rejection of the winners. And there is something that will not happen once approved, that the native peoples give consent, for example, to transform plurinationality into multiculturality or renounce the authorization prior to the entry of Chilean armed forces to the territories where they have autonomy.
The real possibility of having a better constitution, appropriate for the twenty-first century and the future of the country, goes through rejection, which today is for me doubtful, since the approval can win, fundamentally because of the attractiveness of supposedly free rights.
I believe that the best possibility to create a virtuous trajectory lies in the past, in that experience that I remember as a brilliant day in history, which was the defeat of General Pinochet in 1988. It was also a polarized and divided country, where the best choice of triunfo was that of the regime, and since there are no good dictatorships, democracy will always have superiority.
The answer to What to do? is to learn from what was done so long ago. That is, without the order being indicative of anything, firstly, to offer cooperation instead of confrontation, and, secondly, not to create confusion, but to say in all honesty what is going to be done, from the day after.
Thirdly, it is not a matter of data kills story or only the criticism of a job badly done, but that which is lacking today in rejection, that is, mysticism, emotion as well as a unified command; direction and unity that we do not have today and that was abundant at that time.
Fourthly, clarity about what is wanted, that is, a Pact for Chile, with ideas and commitments for a common horizon for the country and a claim for the Democracy of the Agreements, taking charge of those issues that require more than one government and that do not have a quick or easy solution, as well as a solidary state at the same time as strategic, and aneconomy that generates the necessary resources for a welfare society as the majority wishes, at the same time that there are policies to which their time has come, such as, for example, real decentralization.
These ideas should not remain only in promises but deposited as soon as possible in Congress to demonstrate the seriousness of the Pact. It is also oneor between democrats, so extremist and non-democratic groups, left, center or right, as in the No of the last century, must be left out, and without complexes. There, it must also be expressedor, without demagoguery, the way to get the necessary resources to finance social demands, which by definition are obtained only through work, seriousness and graduality in the absence of magic shortcuts.
This campaign is not to give themselves tastes but to convince the undecided, which means leaving out the faces of the Chilean right, who are simply not reliable for this purpose, given their trajectory in this regard, since they do not generate credibility to broad layers of the electorate, in addition to the government that facilitated the one that exists today, Piñera’s, is too closeor. It would only be a turn of hand, since in 1988 the same thing the left did to triumph, supporting someone key in the democratic recovery as was Don Patricio Aylwin, but whose support for the military coup of 1973 was then still fresh, which is not contradictory, but only the history of Chile without bias.
And of the political figures, a central role should be played by President Lagos, today, the only one with the credibility and ability to move masses of voters, for a role like Aylwin, but not as president, since that remains until resignation or end of his term Gabriel Boric, and the characteristic of a good democracy is to respect procedures and institutions, that is, a republican vision.
In the end, it is a question of rescuing a feat and not committing the same mistakes of the Convention, but of the opposite sign, that is, voluntarism, proposing reforms for a country that does not exist, in this case, “already” does not exist, playing with promises and expectations, dividing the country between good and bad, hiding behind a new elite.
In the end, to recover the lost seriousness, and this means discarding the existence of two parallel processes. This does not exist, the process is one and the vote is only approval and rejection, without surnames or flaps. The defense of Chile that could disappear requires seriousness as well as not dirtying the process, with the bad Latin American habit of changing the rules of the game along the way.
It is the way to overcome intolerance. It also helps to legitimize good politics and repair Lagos’ mistake in the 2005 reform, which was not having plebiscite it, since any big constitutional modification requires legitimization, and, therefore, the fulfillment of democratic rites, so it was not enough for his signature to replace that of Pinochet, as was demonstrated.
Today, that means not twisting the trajectory through the partisanship and the kidnapping of the new stage by elites, in addition, many of them with very low approval and responsible for having ceded their powers from Congress. It was that political class that co-authored an important part of what went wrong. And, by the way, the fact is present that, although the convention existed, they always maintained (it was not a Constituent Assembly) their constitutional powers.
There is a great – and not only in Chile – discredit ofthe political office, therefore, it would simply be an invitation to defeat that they now appear trying to co-optthe process, since we must not forget that a percentage like the 80% who asked for a new constitution, also supported that it be done in a convention, without the participation of sitting senators and deputies.
A lot of water has flowed in a short time, and the excesses of many constituents have changed the attitude of the voters, but it should not be forgotten that the starting point is the need to agree on a new constitution, and the lesson left by the bad image of thecreation, is that now it must be done through the search for agreements and consensus, thinking about the future more than the past.
On September 5, if the rejection wins, a new alternative must be offered, that of the reunion of Chile, the only reasonable path, since the current reality shows that the rejection or approval wins, the constitutional debate will continue and that after this constitutional adventure, the way must show search for consensus, respect for adversaries and different opinions, exactly what has been lacking, tolerance and serenity.
Chile needs certainty if it is to win the rejection, and today there is no clarity, above all, that Chileans can expect from the next day. It is necessary not only to look at and learn from the experience of the plebiscite that defeated General Pinochet, also in conditions of polarization, so we must also incorporate a horizon and an itinerary of commitments to be fulfilled by the democratic forces of the center, left and right.
In a democracy, both alternatives are valid, and for rejection to win, not only consensus must be offered, but also a road map, and for this, hopefully the standard bearers will also be representative of the indigenous peoples, whose vast majority, as Mapuche leaders such as Hugo Alcaman and the lonkos of Chiloé have expressed, are proud of being part of Chile and not of the refoundation of the country.
“The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author”.
