The proposal for a new constitution was rejected by no less than 62% of the voters. In the plebiscite, 13 of the 15 million authorized voters voted, and probably in the history of Chile there had not been an election with those numbers and participation.
Not only that result, since the figures were overwhelming at all levels, since the 16 regions of the country rejected the same as 338 of the 346 communes, the differences in favor of rejection were even greater in some localities with a higher percentage of population indigenous.
The polls had anticipated the victory, but never by these margins, and perhaps it is this forcefulness that explains why it had strong repercussions throughout the Latin American region, being read in a national key in countries such as Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, and others, by the way, with reactions for and against.
The constitutional reform that the Convention allowed was very clear, and if the Approval won, the new fundamental letter began to govern immediately by constitutional supremacy, but if it won the rejection, it would return to what the current constitution had, that is, that the constituent power was rooted in the Congress, a newly elected one, along with President Boric. Any other alternative would require a new constitutional reform.
For the rest, the Convention was only possible because there was a delegation of its powers by Congress, so much clarity existed that, during the operation of the constituent, a constitutional reform was discussed and approved, which is known as that of the 4 /7. That is to say, nothing to discuss about the powers of Congress, absolutely in accordance with the republican and democratic postulates and with legality, therefore, absolute legitimacy. There is, therefore, a path without problems for dialogue, and another, full of problems, as it would be to repeat the convention.
Personally, I assumed that it was an opportunity, a new opportunity for the political class to vindicate itself, given its responsibility in the experimental process that has ended with the plebiscite.
It even seemed to be the moment for a great national agreement, which would seek to start this new stage of the country with a Pact for Chile, of collaboration rather than confrontation, to return to a democracy of agreements and basic consensus, like the one that later allowed the defeat of General Pinochet, some of the best years in the country’s history, along with the return to democracy.
It was my mistake. Not even a day passed when one of the worst deviations from democracy, partitocracy or partyocracy, a term that has a connotation that ranges from the analytical to the pejorative, was present. It is used to describe the excessive power of political parties in a democratic system, that is, a form of kidnapping of the popular will, since, instead of representing the people, it is the party directives that violate their character of simple representation. , to assume by itself and before itself the effective sovereignty.
And something like this is what would be happening, since two days had not passed before they met in La Moneda, and skipping everything that had happened on Sunday the 4th, they communicated something surprising to the country, which in practice annulled what they had voted The vast majority. The meeting of the parties with parliamentary representation was summed up by Camila Vallejo, the minister spokesperson: “we had an instance with very good spirits and terms to continue this process and arrive at a new constitution”, assuming a new constitutional process, and as it is logical, a defeated government considered it “very good news for Chile”.
Exactly what 62% had said no to. It was a meeting, where it can be assumed, that there was none of the terrible moral superiority that had been installed in the Chilean debate.
What would be happening is also exemplified by that citizen on foot who approached an opposition senator who was on his way to the government palace, and calmly asked him who had granted him the representation to modify the popular vote. By the way, she could not answer her, just turn around. It was the Chilean right acting like the Chilean right.
Supposedly the foundation comes from October 2020, when as a way to overcome the violence that had appeared in the streets the previous year, a plebiscite was held to enter the Convention, where 78% responded that they wanted a proposal for a new constitution and a A similar percentage wanted it to be done by new people, without the participation of senators or deputies in office, although, in a pandemic, with the turnout of less than half of the voters.
This argument is simply not valid, since it was always understood that everything ended in the exit plebiscite on September 4, either with approval or rejection. 62% was not only a vote against the draft that was proposed, but also a repudiation of everything that accompanied the Convention, that is, intolerance, maximalism and a refoundational attempt to radically change what Chile was.
The speed of recent events shows that there were earlier rapprochements and agreements. In fact, the same ones who were at the La Moneda meeting appeared on television screens that same Sunday. And it is worth the question of the lady in the street to the senator: who would have appointed them to represent that 62% and in what capacity did they speak.
Chile would be making a mistake again, the Democrats’ Pact for Chile will not take place, with a return of the political center that is now irrelevant, and that would leave out the non-democratic forces. No. It would be presenting something that causes damage to democracy, the kidnapping of the will of the sovereign people, by their supposed representatives.
In addition, very unethical, since it puts Chile on the same path as the Maduros and Evo, that of repeating elections and insisting until it finally works out for them. The sad thing is that there was a historic and clarifying vote, only for leaders and parties to appear, to report that they wanted to try again what had failed and had been defeated, not an always welcome dialogue, but a new Convention.
Incomprehensible from any republican and democratic reading.
It would even give rise to think that the events that were witnessed in the cabinet change were timed to coincide with what was described.
In fact, the most striking thing about the cabinet change was the entry into the most important ministries of those who had made their political career very close to former President Bachelet, which was not a minor entry, since they correspond to the political lines permanently criticized by President Boric and the front line of the Broad Front, in their decade-long race to power.
A change that marks the presence of a generation that had received criticism and contempt from the current authorities. Not only that, but it also coincides with a text made public on September 6, signed by a group of 13 senators from the Socialist Party and the Party for Democracy, exactly those to which these new ministers belong, key parties for having a presence in two worlds, the historical one of the Coalition and also that of the current government coalition, and for the same reason, with a lot of hinge power in the new scenario.
There is talk of a new Convention, with a plebiscite until August 23, 2023, 100 elected members, parity lists of parties, with a representation of native peoples in proportion to their voters and other details. That is to say, a repetition of what failed and was rejected, except in a point of interest for all the parties, there would be no competition for their monopoly by independent lists, but these would have to be integrated into those of the parties, and they could not run Separately.
It is not exaggeration, but it is happening in front of our eyes. I thought that the political class had an opportunity to rehabilitate itself. They took the wrong path of despising the only voice that should not be done that in a democracy, that of the people.
They had not disappeared, apparently they had only hidden during the plebiscite period, since their levels of disapproval are transversal and very high. They reappear with this surprise, a bad surprise that the partitocracy gives millions, bad for public ethics, democracy and the republic.
Even worse, I suspect that this cooked-up leadership agreement, in a tired country, could work for them.
“The opinions published here are the sole responsibility of their author.”
