After having been subjected to Pinochet’s military dictatorship from 1974 to 1990, Chileans have strived to transform their country in a modern democracy. The impetus towards a new, more progressive, country culminated in the protests started in 2019. The focus of such public revolt was to replace the constitution Pinochet’s regime had impose. The text was, in fact, anachronistic with respects to the direction Chileans want to take their country; amongst other things, it affords little rights, especially to women, it does not protect social minorities nor the environment and seems, as claimed by the majority of the population, to institutionalise social inequality. The constitution, was argued, allows a small minority to enrich themselves with impunity at the detriment of the rest of the population. With a new progressive President, Gabriel Boric, the protests were successful and a vote on replacing the current constitution was won. That was the start of a process still ongoing.
When the first constitutional assembly was formed, although it did not consist of politicians, it was overseen by the left. As a result, the first draft of the new constitution reflected many widespread convictions of left voters, especially young people. The text was indeed impressive in terms of rights it afforded. It extended democratic participation, established gender equality, addressed issues including universal health care, education, pensions, environment preservation as well as basic rights like access to water. Crucially, it also granted Indigenous people specific rights that amounted to greater independence. This last point was arguably what sparked suspicion of overreach by the assembly. The emphasis on “plurinationalism” did not land well among a large number of Chileans, who pride themselves on unity and are, therefore, reticent to recognise subgroups in society as somewhat separate from the general population. However, this was not the only point on which people felt the assembly had gone to extravagant extents. Among the 388 proposed articles, there were even some giving legal status to glaciers. Although the green imprint of the new draft is admirable, this is an example of where the left went wrong.
When there is such a unanimous call for change, as there was in the referendum on replacing the constitution, where 80% of the population voted in favour, there always is the temptation to make the desired changes all at once; often under the impression that the opportunity at hand should not be missed. The left in Chile did not resist that temptation. Undoubtedly, amongst those who protested back in 2019 there were plenty of people who supported the new constitution, 38% of Chileans voted in its favour; nonetheless, it was near impossible that such an extreme change would resonate positively with the majority of Chileans, who have so far lived under widely different laws.
Not only we must account for the Chileans who voted against replacing the constitution but also for those who envisioned a more moderate change. Arguably, the left, in its guidance of the assembly members, has attempted to turn the draft into its own political manifesto, forgetting the need for a constitution to set the country’s direction but also to be, to the extent possible, representative of all citizens. Ultimately, its lack of moderation has costs Chile the opportunity to make historical steps forward in relation to social, specifically gender, equality and welfare, which were at the heart of the protests. The left did not do it all on its own though. The right-wing parties invested millions in a campaign of disinformation and character assassination of the president, in an attempt to turn the vote on the constitution in a vote of confidence for the current government. In this, they succeeded. The government’s failure to tackle criminality, inflation and the violent conflict involving Indigenous activists and the state lent a hand to the right, which exploited it. Likely for the left, when the right had its chance at drafting a new constitution, they made their same mistake. The draft Chileans recently voted on, and rejected, was the right’s attempt to write their own political manifesto.
The draft contained none of the new rights envisioned in the previous draft; on the opposite, it planned to give more leeway to the private sector in healthcare, education and so on. It also proposed some conservative language on social issues. What sparked people’s interest the most was the fear that the new constitution could be used to establish a blanket ban on abortion. A further concern raised by the left was that the freedom given to business in the text would allow them, on the grounds of religious beliefs, to decline serving certain customers, including gay couples and transgender people. Ultimately, the draft proposed by the right did not constitute a step forward from the Pinochet constitution, which understandably made people think its adoption would be somewhat pointless. Again, whilst pleasing their own voters, the right alienated the rest of the citizens who had very clearly asked for change and not for the status quo to be confirmed. Although this was a loss for the right, the bigger picture reveals that they might have won this battle.
At the end of this frustrating and draining process, Chileans are widely disillusioned with the democratic prosses and the chance of meaningful change. Many have expressed their unwillingness to vote on yet another proposal. The unwillingness is based on the feeling that politicians are playing against each other rather than working towards the new Chile its citizens have asked for. Whilst the left will continue to govern, its approval ratings have plummeted as a result of the little they have accomplished thus far. At the same time, the old constitution will remain in place, much to the benefit of the right, which has in the end managed to preserve the status quo. The difficulties faced in Chile with regards to the adoption of a new constitution, raise questions has to whether constitutionalism is the best way to achieve change. Given the seemingly impossibility of consensus, exacerbated by today’s polarisation and spread of misinformation, the path of reforms should be revaluated in favour of an all-encompassing and definitive text.
Finally, although Chile remains one of the most stable and prosperous nations in Latin America, the country has failed to take the awaited step forward so many Chileans demanded. Such a change would not have only benefited Chileans but would have also paved the way for Chile to strengthen its position on the international stage as a leader in political and social development. Ultimately, responsibility lies with political parties on both sides. The left’s unrestrained ambition alienated the Chileans who were not quite ready for such a far-reaching change and allowed the right to capitalise on it. On its part, the latter failed to channel, to any significant extent, the Chileans’ quest for change into the proposed text. Looking at the limbo in which Chileans have been stuck for years, one cannot shake off the feeling that democratic change has been, as we have grown accustomed to witness, hindered by political games which ultimately left both parties fundamentally empty-handed. Neither the left nor the right made any substantial and definitive gain. The right merely managed to slow down a process that is unlikely to be stopped now that the quest for social justice is embedded in so many Chilean’s political convictions. Nonetheless, until this process of transformation gains momentum again, sadly, Pinochet’s legacy will continue to rule.
By The European Institute for International Law and International Relations
