A mistaken view, popular among Chileans, is the idea of a pretended “exceptionalism” that is to say, events that take place in the rest of Latin America but not in Chile. Two situations highlight the argument.
The first one was for previous generations the idea that military interventions did not take place in the country, only to be proved wrong by Pinochet in 1973. The mistake came from confusing incidence with how often the military seized power. In other words, there was no need for many insurrections, because every time they acted as institutions have reshaped political and economic life in the country, including the enactment of new constitutions.
It happened in 1830 when conservatives defeated liberals in Lircay to later produce the 1833 constitution. It also took place in 1925 when a military movement supported the 1925 constitution, and of course it did happen after the 1973 take over of government by the armed forces. Even more, in 1891 a civil war confronted president Balmaceda and the army against Congress and the Navy. The latter were the winners and Balmaceda took his own life in the Argentinian embassy where he had taken refuge.
The second situation is closer to our days. Until October 2019 excelled the idea that in Chile predominated national unity and institutional solidity. But street protests and violence questioned the performance of the political class, and above all, Sebastián Piñera’s government was totally surpassed.
The result was a process to write a new constitution to replace the one enacted in 1980, that despite many alterations was never widely accepted as legitimate, because of its origin. A constitutional convention was elected with a clear predominance of constituents against the liberal development path followed since Chile´s return to democracy in 1990, and it was clear to everyone that there was no legal solidity and neither national unity behind political and economic institutions.
There are many differences between Chile 1973 and Chile after 2019, but similar to both is a common disrespect for democracy in political elites and the media. In both cases polarization prevailed, aggravated in 2019 by a government who offered for its survival a new constitution instead of resorting to the legal tools at its disposal, being Piñera political responsible.
As there are general elections in November 2021, the new President and Congress will have to coexist with the Constitutional Convention for several months until a plebiscite will decide if the proposal for
a new constitution is accepted, with the uncertainty if the new rules will call for the replacement of those elected.
It is true that after the plebiscite that defeated General Pinochet in 1988, there was a wide gap in the positions of both sectors , but they were able to reach basic agreements on democracy and market economy which provided stability and three decades of progress. The fact is that this is history and no similar attitude prevails among today constituents.
It is not evident that the convention will be able to produce in one year a text for a new constitution and neither if it will be approved in the plebiscite. What is clear is that there will be uncertainty and probably division and institutional instability.
Once again it is useful to remember the golden rule of democracy: if the election is legitimate the ballot box is always respected, but at the same time the electorate is responsible of its decision.
Time to say that Chile has cheated itself in the past with the idea of “exceptionalism” and probably in this opportunity, it will have to look itself in the mirror as being part of the Latin American region.
The first one was for previous generations the idea that military interventions did not take place in the country, only to be proved wrong by Pinochet in 1973. The mistake came from confusing incidence with how often the military seized power. In other words, there was no need for many insurrections, because every time they acted as institutions have reshaped political and economic life in the country, including the enactment of new constitutions.
It happened in 1830 when conservatives defeated liberals in Lircay to later produce the 1833 constitution. It also took place in 1925 when a military movement supported the 1925 constitution, and of course it did happen after the 1973 take over of government by the armed forces. Even more, in 1891 a civil war confronted president Balmaceda and the army against Congress and the Navy. The latter were the winners and Balmaceda took his own life in the Argentinian embassy where he had taken refuge.
The second situation is closer to our days. Until October 2019 excelled the idea that in Chile predominated national unity and institutional solidity. But street protests and violence questioned the performance of the political class, and above all, Sebastián Piñera’s government was totally surpassed.
The result was a process to write a new constitution to replace the one enacted in 1980, that despite many alterations was never widely accepted as legitimate, because of its origin. A constitutional convention was elected with a clear predominance of constituents against the liberal development path followed since Chile´s return to democracy in 1990, and it was clear to everyone that there was no legal solidity and neither national unity behind political and economic institutions.
There are many differences between Chile 1973 and Chile after 2019, but similar to both is a common disrespect for democracy in political elites and the media. In both cases polarization prevailed, aggravated in 2019 by a government who offered for its survival a new constitution instead of resorting to the legal tools at its disposal, being Piñera political responsible.
As there are general elections in November 2021, the new President and Congress will have to coexist with the Constitutional Convention for several months until a plebiscite will decide if the proposal for
a new constitution is accepted, with the uncertainty if the new rules will call for the replacement of those elected.
It is true that after the plebiscite that defeated General Pinochet in 1988, there was a wide gap in the positions of both sectors , but they were able to reach basic agreements on democracy and market economy which provided stability and three decades of progress. The fact is that this is history and no similar attitude prevails among today constituents.
It is not evident that the convention will be able to produce in one year a text for a new constitution and neither if it will be approved in the plebiscite. What is clear is that there will be uncertainty and probably division and institutional instability.
Once again it is useful to remember the golden rule of democracy: if the election is legitimate the ballot box is always respected, but at the same time the electorate is responsible of its decision.
Time to say that Chile has cheated itself in the past with the idea of “exceptionalism” and probably in this opportunity, it will have to look itself in the mirror as being part of the Latin American region.
“The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author”.
