Chile faces its most important election since the 1988 plebiscite. Then as now, Chile does not need to be refounded, and in a Latin America in which the narrative has prevailed in various ways and in many elections over the facts, this needs to be remembered. . That the governing constitution had its origin in a dictatorship is a fact, as is the fact that today it is a fully democratic instrument, and the most reformed in the country’s history, signed by a socialist president like Ricardo Lagos and his ministers.
The proposal not only fights against both heritages, but what above all motivates my rejection, is a total refoundation of that historical construction known as Chile, both in the Spanish conquest and from the first government meeting in 1810. It is not exaggeration, since what is going to be plebiscite dynamite what Chile has built in more than two centuries, seeking to attack what is considered bad, but along the way it destroys much of what is good.
In its replacement there is a dose of ideology, much of an experimental one, with a result that is not found in the long evolution of the country nor in other constitutions. It is a curious mixture, perhaps the first totally postmodern, where identity quotas replace the basic equality of democratic republicanism, that everyone is equal before the law. It is the identity deconstruction of a nation and the frontal distancing of institutions that had made its history. But it is also one of the first that resorts to what is called “coloniality” or that the prolongation of the colony would be experienced, to find there a vital part of its foundation.
In many cases, the problem is not the objectives as such, but, above all, the way to address them, that is, extremism, excess, experimentation, refoundation, denying what Chile and Chileans are. Is Chile still a nation? Beyond intentions, the result to be plebiscitated says that, apparently, the answer is not for two thirds of the convention, it is not one, but at least eleven that coexist on an equal plane, since the country is divided by identities and estates, for which the republican-democratic ideal of one person equal to one vote is questioned in practice.
It can be rejected for reasons that some do not like, namely, a territorial autonomy that goes beyond the regionalization and decentralization that we have been postulating for years; it could be plurinationality instead of just a proposal for constitutional recognition and multiculturalism, the undermining of the autonomy of the judiciary; for others, the dissolution of the political equilibrium, the locks for its reform, and the idea of making it stone, freezing a passing majority. Those points are legitimate, but reformable, interchangeable with other majorities and perhaps the original authors of the Pinochet constitution also thought that they had managed to stop the wheels of history.
My fear and my rejection goes far beyond specific points, since the basic proposal cannot be reformed, since it seeks to modify the essence of a historical construction and modify it so radically that it is intended to completely refound Chile.
And it does not stop with approval, since the text will require many additional laws, in a political system that has a single decisive chamber, which with a tiny circumstantial majority can repeal and approve laws. I mean, it may just be the beginning. In addition, it is a very extensive constitution of 388 articles, much of it subject to interpretation, with a politically intervened judicial system at the highest level.
There is no such thing as left-wing Pinochetism, but extremes do meet and meet, in the words of Lenin, against what he called leftism. He used to say that since the world is round, from going to the left so much they found themselves on the right and vice versa. Starting with him and his Bolsheviks, I add that the extremes are similar when seeking to impose a political, economic, social, ecological and cultural model. More than reason, a feeling of emotion predominates, based on revenge and sectarianism with those who think differently.
The social agenda to which the need for a new constitution was attributed was overshadowed by plurinationality, an issue that may even have consequences not only for mining and agricultural activities by requiring prior consent of these communities, but also equality in some legal issues and constitutional reforms, which will also require this prior authorization. And we know from the experience of other countries that granting privileges to previously discriminated groups is not the solution, but rather a source of new conflicts.
It is not about intentions but about results, since once again the issue is how the proposal has been written, because that consent goes far beyond the standard of consultation in matters that affect them of the ILO Convention 169, becoming a real veto power. This element can also have an international effect, since it can almost inevitably be exported to Argentina, since the concept of Wallmapu goes from the Atlantic to the Pacific, so the separatist variant claims territories of both countries, and the Argentine mobilizations go just a couple of years behind. And for its part, in the north it can open a floodgate to review something that was supposed to be closed, such as Bolivia’s territorial loss in the Pacific War. Not immediately, but as part of a new process.
The proposal to vote is a reflection of the constitutional magical realism that has triumphed by winning many elections by ensuring that it is enough to write a right for it to exist for free, and the problem is not so much that it is said, but that many believe it. It is also the so-called “adamism” of the biblical Adam, that everything must start from scratch, without accepting any evolution.
It is a refoundation that also affects democracy, by seeking not only the perpetuation of people and institutions, but also the ballot box with reserved seats, more for activists through special registries than for the real ethnic group, where those already known others are added. In this regard, rather than seeking a majority, it is supported by a sum of minorities, rather than the universalism of a future utopia, the particularism of a remote and idealized past is sought, one that never existed.
It is the search for a different type of representativeness, where all votes are not worth the same. To begin with, parity as expressed in this Convention was detrimental to women instead of favoring them, since it allowed the entry of more men instead of the women who obtained more votes; for example, in this way a former communist minister was able to enter, perhaps the most influential of the 145 in obtaining the necessary votes to approve the articles.
A very high threshold of two thirds was set, but the electoral system adopted allowed the addition of minorities and there was a process of permanent negotiations between disruptive political groups and identity demands. It was possible, because no less than 24 constituents obtained less than 5,000 votes each. Of the 17 constituents of native peoples, 10 entered with less than 5,000. Participation in these registers was 22.8%, half the percentage at the national level, already low. And watch out, this was so, because in reality the majority of the original peoples preferred to vote in the common Padrón of the rest of the Chileans. This way of modifying democracy not only enters definitively into the proposal, but also continues to put its hand in the ballot box, adding racial factors (Afro-descendants) and perhaps sexual minorities.
Those who speak of “Approve to reform” and those who propose “Reject to reform” have emerged later. The truth is that it does not matter, since, if it is approved, any reform becomes difficult, since the winners are not going to want to change something that has already been approved, in addition to the fact that, in truth, it is very complicated, since there are tight deadlines for the many legal adjustments that are needed by law. Special mention for the Latin American bad habit of changing the rules of the game on the road, which I hope does not happen, being even ugly, unattractive.
The constitutional convention began with almost 80% support, but today the polls show majority support for rejection. My personal impression is that it is still gaining approval, due to the generational and cultural change that Chile has experienced, in addition to the attractiveness of the rights that are offered. Above all, that a decision of this type is still marked by the predominance of emotion over reason, of the narrative or story over the facts.
In the many years of constitutional teaching I have learned two things, that good constitutions are better written with an eraser than with a pencil, in the sense that the best ones are brief, unlike the one that is going to be voted on, which even has things typical of a simple regulation. And, secondly, no constitution can produce joy by itself, but a bad one could generate misfortune, and even tears.
Ultimately, I am concerned that the proposal could lead to a different kind of authoritarianism, which could, like all manipulations, push reunion further away rather than closer, taking us from crisis to crisis towards another confrontation instead of a shared future, since rather than being a constitution itself, what is voted on is the political-ideological program of only one sector.
“The opinions published here are the sole responsibility of their author.”
