In Chile, a particular country in Latin America, a kind of popular clamor for democracy led to a variable called “progressivism”, which seems to have taken “sparks” from communism and socialism to confront, perhaps euphemistically, what called “neoliberalism”. This is how it seems that Chileans voted for Gabriel Boric and his government.
“The outburst”, as is known, led to the agreement between the political forces to draw up a new constitution, a long-standing mechanism, in principle, for a “collective agreement”, a kind of “fan” with rules, which, if applied , would generate the stillness and order necessary to progress in peace. The State, its rights and duties, on the one hand and those of its citizens on the other. The goal, difficult to achieve, “a hypothetical social equality”, given the difference between wealth and poverty, the latter in which a significant number of people dwell who, in the opinion of the Argentine Martín Caparros, do not eat what they need. Pinera, elected as Prime Minister for the second time, “pathologically inclined” in Latin America, expressed, before “the aggressiveness of the street”, “We are willing to discuss everything, including an amendment to the Constitution. Thus began “the lavish Magna Carta”, ending in a kind of diabolized destiny in a duality of nouns “Rejection” or “I Approve”.
The Chilean chapter must be inserted, without a doubt, in the decay of the columns with which the world was created and that throughout history have been weakened, so that humanity is perceived as exhausted. It gives the impression that it had been squeezed like a juicy orange. And an indubitable truth, other directions appear in every corner, making it difficult to qualify them worse than those of yesteryear. The sources, in fact, refer to “freedom from”, the common, worldly and non-creative and “freedom to”, that is, “creativity”. The first comes from the past, the second always with a view to the future”. It is argued that the first degrades your condition as a human being, so it is often asked what those whom a normative text typifies that they are no longer slaves do with their freedom, reason to speculate in what sense a “perfect social harmony” remains a game of idle fantasy. Isaiah Berlin in “Two Concepts of Liberty” perhaps rightly predicted, metaphorically, that “a pair of boots is preferable to the works of Shakespeare” and that for Rousseau “the nature of things does not make us angry: what we are angry is the ill will”. On that stage he has wandered freedom. And with it the human being himself, yes, the one who in political processes “consents or dissents”. Freedom has wandered on that stage. And with it the human being himself, yes, the one who in political processes “consents or dissents”. Freedom has wandered on that stage. And with it the human being himself, yes, the one who in political processes “consents or dissents.”
History reveals that “the constitutional pact” is at the mercy of those who have more capacity, preparation, power and a definitive disposition to apply it. In addition, it establishes the way to discipline the natural world, which is regulated through this “pact”, so that peoples live in harmony, order and progress, goals that when they are not achieved, the statutory rules must be updated. . The mechanisms, the so-called “amendments”, whose purpose is to adapt the constitutional norm to reality, the way so that the “Law of laws” continues to be useful for its purposes. Countries lucky enough to have reached acceptable stages of institutionality tend to resort to them or to “reform”, the latter beyond the former. The modification, however, must be serious and unusual, since the seriousness of the “Magna Carta” would be damaged. And it logically contradicts its essence as a “stable political and social pact”. It must also be borne in mind that a “living” constitution is built, works and evolves through the work of citizens and their representatives. Otherwise there is no “real constitution”. And that Montesquieu warned that the people are not prepared to discuss public affairs, but their representatives are.
History, however, seems to reveal that the essential principles have not been respected in the constituent processes. And Latin America, more than the exception, the rule. The constituents have served to justify coups, since their mentors usually turn to the mechanism as “a hopeful offer to the people” in order to calm them down in what is formally described as “the exercise of sovereignty.” The constitutional text that thus derives remains at the mercy of the good will, authority and hierarchy of the one who comes to govern. This is how it happened to Chile due to the overthrow of the socialist government of Salvador Allende, an episode for the Magna Carta that Pinera offered to review, generating a bulky one that, submitted to popular consultation, the Chileans rejected.
“The constituent vice” has not generated, without a doubt, positive fruit. It is, has been and will continue to be a wrong methodology, since it threatens the stability of political regimes, a burdensome problem in the 21st century. The former Vice Chancellor of Germany, Joschka Fischer, has stated in a lapidary phrase “The world is reeling. It is the end of stability.”
An indisputable conclusion “Chile did not do well”. It is up to you to work objectively to get out of the mess. And luckily she has what.
“The opinions published here are the sole responsibility of their author.”
