The plebiscite on the new Constitution in Chile poses a profound paradox

Historical. This is how many in Chile define this Sunday’s elections, in which citizens will say “yes” or “no” to the new Constitution. But this plebiscite poses a profound paradox. Regardless of the result, it is clear that the text, as it was printed and presented to Gabriel Boric’s government in July, probably never be implemented.

It is that even supporters of the approval, including the president himself, who strongly supported this alternative, admit that the content presents flaws, obscure points and a list of controversial topics that divide society and have deepened a crack that became evident after the massive social uprising of 2019.

While the polls predict a probable victory for the “Refusal” option – even if these days the difference has narrowed and there is an air of uncertainty here today – Boric has already admitted that if the Constitution is approved, he is willing to insert the reforms.

Days ago, in the middle of the campaign, the parties of the government alliance signed an agreement to commit to making the necessary changes to apply the new text.

There is talk of a transversal agreement between all political forces for this Monday. Defenders and opponents of the proposal are convinced that a new text will have to be worked on.

Because despite the gap that splits the country in two, there still seems to be agreement on the need to bury the 1980 Constitution and replace it with a new one.

But that’s not what is being voted on now, which seeks to move towards a welfare state with a greater public presence.

The proposal

With a strong emphasis on gender equality, it also declares the “Ecological State”, with a commitment to defend the environment.

Research put an end to the privatization of essential resources such as water and facilitating access to housing and other achievements of equal rights and social justice.

Net changes in relation to the Magna Carta of the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, which – despite the partial reforms implemented in democracy – leaves the management of education, health, the pension system in the hands of the market, with minimal space for state interference .

But despite the desire for democratic openness of this proposal, many see us a threat to the established order.

The drafting of a new text was the result of an agreement between different political forces in November 2019, when an unprecedented crowd – the vast majority of them young – took to the streets, in an expression of fury that left dozens of injured in clashes with the police, destruction that can still be seen today in the center of Santiago and one certainty: Chile needs a profound reform of its political and social model.

“After the outbreak of 2019, Chileans felt that the company had reached a point of development where they needed a fairer model, with better opportunities,” he explained to Clarione political analyst Kenneth Bunker, of the consulting firm Trespuntos.

But the text drawn up in a year by a Constituent Assembly elected at the polls and composed largely of independents and representatives of social movements, with little participation of traditional parties, has provoked disappointment.

“Those who reject this text feel that it is an experiment, that it is a break that is not necessarily good. They didn’t want such radical changes, “says Bunker.

resistors

Why is this text not convincing? Various analysts consulted by Clarione they coincide in mentioning several factors. In principle, a discredit of the constituent process itself, which has shown a series of setbacks.

“Voters have made a number of mistakes. There have been fights, scandals. Furthermore, they did not initiate the discussion on social rights, rights to health, to education, as we said, but on issues that were not central, such as the rights of indigenous peoples, the environment. Important issues, but they were not the focus of the statement, “analyst Marta Lagos, founder of the consulting firms Mori and Latinobarómetro, told this correspondent.

But what makes the most noise are some articles, like the one we are talking about multinationality and recognizes the elimination of the Senate and a major change in the Judiciary for 11 indigenous populations – which together make up 12.8% of the Chilean population. The article relating to sexual and reproductive health and opening the doors to abortion has also sparked great controversy.

According to the political scientist Claudia Heiss, of the Faculty of Government of the University of Chile, there is actually “a lot of misinformation” about this process.

“The scandals escalated, the idea was created that progress on property rights would be made, that a multinational state would be created that would threaten the unity of the country,” he said.

In any case, this Sunday’s result does not close a chapter. Only the door opens for a new process of debates on Chile that the majority of society wants.

Santiago, special correspondent