By Alejandra Garcia and Bill Hackwell on December 19, 2023
The challenges on the road to real democracy in Chile are evident. For the second time, the majority of the Chilean people rejected a proposal to replace the current Constitution, drafted during the bloody dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet (1974-1990). With more than 55% voting, the “against” option won out over the “for” option, which obtained 44% support in the plebiscite held on this past Sunday.
In 2019, the Chilean people took to the streets against the neoliberal measures of former president Sebastian Piñera. Led primarily by the Chilean youth who felt disenfranchised, the struggle then turned to designing a new Constitution, with a wide range of competing interests, as the only possible way to democracy, peace, and citizen tranquility. Although almost 80 percent of the citizens supported drafting the new document, there has been no consensus. The first attempt failed in September 2022, when 62% rejected a proposal that many qualified as “re-foundational.”
The first text was drafted with the leadership of independents and left-wing sectors. If it had been approved, it would have enshrined more than 100 rights, the most of any national charter in history, including the right to housing, education, internet access, clean air, sanitation and care “from birth to death.” One year and three months later, Chileans again said no to a document that, for many, was far more conservative than the current Constitution, although it was revised several times in the process.
But what does this defeat mean? “The failure lies in the Chilean ruling political class that misinterpreted and derailed the demands of the social outburst of 2019,” said political scientist Juan Pablo Luna, professor at the School of Government of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. The first reading, the most obvious, is the failure of the right-wing to lead this second constitutional attempt to a successful conclusion. The result of the elections means a defeat for the extreme right led by the former presidential candidate José Antonio Kast, who was the protagonist this second proposal.
The Mapuche, which makes up 13% of the Chilean population were not fooled into supporting a constitution that excluded their interests and was really no better than the existing archaic constitution of Pinochet. Ultimatley the authors of it were tied to a business model that favors the rich and individual interests.
“The main one responsible for this failure is undoubtedly the far right Republican Party, which had the opportunity to elaborate a text that would bring unity and did not take advantage of it. Now, the center-right is also responsible for this failure, as it should have done much more to include social democracy but preferred to align itself with the Republicans to avoid the drain of voters,” added Chilean journalist Sylvia Eyzaguirre.
This is also a bitter victory for the mostly leftist sectors, which were behind the “against” option but which, for the second time, lost in their historical yearning to change the current Constitution.
“After four years and two constitutional attempts, we are worse off than before: polarized, with a complex economic situation and citizen insecurity, distrust in institutions, etc. People are angry, disappointed, and tired; politics, from the right and left, do not know how to respond to the demands of the working population. Its polarization has only weakened our democracy, and the result of this plebiscite may be the symptom of its crisis,” Eyzaguirre commented.
It’s been Chile’s turbulent way of coming to terms with the unfinished work of the transition to democracy. For Felipe Agüero, a University of Chile political scientist who has studied the country’s evolution since the end of the Pinochet dictatorship in 1990, “this is a consequence of postponing changing the Constitution in a significant way for so long.”
So what now, how do we move forward, and are there any lessons Chileans can take away from all this? Experts agree that perhaps the main lesson of these four years is that electoral revenge is short-lived.
“We can only move forward with unity, great agreements, civic friendship without losing our legitimate differences. We need more humble and generous politicians. The time has come to give a hand to the Government, which needs it urgently and, in turn, it must abandon its childishness, self interests and arrogance to start doing its job with responsibility towards the majority,” Eyzaguirre concluded.
Source: Resumen Latinoamericano – English