In October 2019 there was an explosion of enormous magnitude, a mixture of social demands and violence, where churches, Metro stations, transport buses and shops were destroyed. Not only that, but he had support, appreciation and validation in the media and political groups, with tributes that brought the Congress to the front line of the barricades. Even in court, since clandestine torture centers were invented.
The government did not know how to react and the police were overwhelmed. The collapse of public order led to a negotiation and an unexpected political solution, a Convention that would propose a new Constitution for Chile, whose culmination was the plebiscite of September 4, where almost 62% (61.87%) of the voters rejected the proposal.
This result was a great surprise, since the polls predicted a victory for the rejection, but such a noticeable difference was not anticipated by anyone. Despite government intervention, approval only obtained 38.13%.
However, just as or even more surprising is what happened next, where for a good number of politicians and the media this result apparently would not have taken place, and they continue to act as if none of this had happened, with which the great mystery is that it happened with such a clear and forceful vote.
The question arises, what is happening with the political class that does not pay attention to what happened and if they believe in the disappearance of that overwhelming 62%? The impression they give is that many want to repeat the failed Convention.
Furthermore, the government was defeated in the first place as it was totally invested in the proposal and actively intervened to that end. Today, he is acting as if that plebiscite had never taken place, as if there had not yet been a result.
Secondly, the ruling parties proposed for the future something very close to what was defeated, that is, from 100 to 125 members elected for a new Convention, 9 reserved seats, parity between men and women, 25 to 30 appointed members by the parties, arguing that the rejection was “only” a proposal, so the constitutional issue remains open.
In the third place, important sectors of the two groups that governed the last 30 years (the Social Democratic Coalition and the center right) appear full of doubts and ready to accept a smaller version of what was defeated on September 4, on the basis that “borderlines” or limitations were incorporated into what could be done, to avoid refoundational maximalism and the excesses of the defeated convention. Yes, an important part of the right as well. My impression is that there was a negotiation where both expected the victory of the rejection that day, but not the magnitude of the final vote. Perhaps, they reached prior agreements with Boric’s own government, should that scenario unfold.
October 2019 paved the way for the acceptance of violence, and it is very difficult for any society to return to normality, since democracy is, above all, the peaceful resolution of the conflict. In Chile, the previous experience with political violence was that it lasted for almost three decades. It appeared with the polarization of the late 1960s, reached a terrible level with the deaths and disappearances of the military dictatorship, and could only be overcome in the transition to democracy in the 1990s.
In Chile, the term “Octobrism” emerged to describe what appeared in 2019, including the idealization of violence, which was even present in WhatsApp groups of friends and/or relatives, which led some to self-censorship. Chile did not gain anything from the revolt, only setbacks for the country, in addition to greater poverty, uncertainty and lack of opportunities for people. In addition to the violence, there was also a generalized loss of respect for the rules, for all of them. He stayed and did not leave.
Just as bad seems to be the fact that Octobrism is still in the air, since part of the political class maintains the refoundational spirit, despite how clear the vote and verdict of the plebiscite were. Also the intimidation of the Democrats. No one saw the violence of October 2019 coming, nor did anyone see that 62% coming. It is understood that they want to solve the constitutional issue, but it is unacceptable that they do not want to start respecting what the people decided as sovereign.
That is the starting point to which everything else must be subordinated, and it is supported by democracy, republican institutions, the law and the current constitution, the one signed in 2005 by former socialist president Ricardo Lagos.
Ignoring that 62% who, with their vote, gave a more profitable path than their approval of Chile, is a distortion of democracy, called a partyocracy, that is to say, that the party directives would be above the citizen vote. The problem was created by the Chileans themselves who rehabilitated themselves with that unexpected 62%. That is, the rules for moving forward already exist. And they are clear.
The golden principle of democracy is that if the election is legitimate, the will of the voters must be respected. In this regard, it can be compared when Colombia (10-2-2016) and the United Kingdom (06-24-2016) called a plebiscite.
Colombia, for the peace agreement between President Santos and the FARC guerrillas and the United Kingdom for his departure from Europe. In Colombia, Santos’ proposal was defeated, but it still went ahead, while in London, despite the fact that the difference had been small, the opposite verdict of the polls was accepted by supporters and detractors, and there was total respect for the mandate received, even if he didn’t like it.
In Chile, the political class seems not to have understood the message, despite the fact that the rules of the game said that, if the constitutional proposal was rejected, the country would be governed by the current law and constitution, which provide that any future constitutional reform it passes through the National Congress, democratically elected and recently. Any alternative needs to previously reform the constitution, in a similar way to what has just culminated and definitively on September 4, not only the proposed content, but there was a rejection of the Convention itself; Shape and background.
Chile did not know how to take advantage of a great opportunity, but that window has already closed. What cannot be done is to follow the paths of Evo Morales and Maduro, that is, to repeat the rejected experiences until they win, which is contrary to the very idea of democracy.
After the violence, in November 2019 and as part of a political agreement, a constitutional window was opened, where the National Congress temporarily handed over its constitutional powers, which are now fully returned to them. That plebiscite should be respected by those who are dedicated to politics.
The outbreak made the country go backwards, they have been lost years and the causes of the crisis have not been resolved. Moreover, the country’s intelligentsia is indebted, since a good explanation and a reflection of quality and deep enough, both about the violence and the vote, have not yet appeared.
There should be no doubt about the advisability and necessity of following the rules, accepting that the constitutional authority lies with Congress, which must fulfill its duty, since the constitutional issue is still pending, there is nothing prevent it from being resolved, through plebiscites, both at the beginning and at the end of the reforms that arise there.
Three years ago, in October 2019, they wanted to blow up all kinds of rules. These groups failed, so it would be absurd to return to the cycle of turmoil and uncertainty. That 62% has already resolved basic issues for everyone, such as Chile being a single nation that allows and wants multiculturalism within itself through the constitutional recognition of its original peoples, but not a plurinationality that divides to the point of making the country unviable. The starting point is always total respect for the will of that 62%,
We do not know everything that happened in 2019 and perhaps a constitutional accusation against former President Pinera would have been necessary, but that possibility no longer exists. What corresponds is to look forward, respect democracy and Congress, leading constitutional reforms to plebiscites, input and output, without a Convention and without a refoundation.
It is not true about the Chilean “exceptionality” in the region. There is not and should not be any moral superiority nor arrogance. If a lot of humility in respecting democratic norms and republican institutions to concentrate on what is fundamental, that every comparison shows us that if there is something difficult it is to write a good constitution, for which it is necessary to understand that the best ones are those that are shorter, those that are written with an eraser instead of a pencil.
“The opinions published here are the sole responsibility of their author.”
