Chile begins the path towards a new plebiscite with little chance of having a new Constitution: the possible consequences of the consultation

On Tuesday, the Chilean president Gabriel Boric received from the hands of Constitutional Council the new Magna Carta proposal and immediately called a plebiscite for December 17, the day on which citizens must decide whether to accept or reject the proposal. This will be the second referendum to decide on a new regulatory framework to which Chileans will be subject in just over a year.

TO LOOK: Chile: Boric receives proposal for a new Constitution and Constitutional Council ends process

After the social upheaval of 2019, a popular demand emerged in Chile for the replacement of the 1980 Constitution, promulgated during the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet (1973 – 1990). In 2020, citizens’ demands translated into 78% support at the polls to replace the Magna Carta, which led to the formation of a Constitutional Convention.

This body was mostly made up of citizens who did not belong to any traditional political party and demonstrated great support from the traditional Chilean left. However, his proposal failed miserably. During the plebiscite on September 4, 61.89% of Chileans voted to reject the proposal presented by the Convention.

After the failure of the first project, political forces called for a second constituent process. This time a Constitutional Council was created made up of 50 members elected by popular vote. This new body was represented mainly by the Chilean right and extreme right, which meant that it was rejected by a significant part of the population since its origins.

“There is a very similar spirit to what the citizens had in the previous process. It is a distance or separation from the process itself. And this led to the rejection result on September 4th. Something similar is happening now, there is a situation of boredom and criticism about the performance of these representative bodies, they are seen as something very distant by citizens.“, he comments The trade political scientist and academic at the University of Chile, Octavio Avendaño.

The President of Chile, Gabriel Boric, together with the Minister General Secretary of the Government, Carolina Toha, and the General Secretary of the Presidency, Álvaro Elizalde, display the signed decree that foresees a plebiscite on December 17, 2023. (Photo by Pablo VERA /AFP). (PABLO VERA/)

The result of this second process is a proposal of 216 articles that essentially maintains the economic model established by the Pinochet regime and that the party in power, which at first had largely supported the change in the Magna Carta, criticized for its conservative and controversial tone. . on issues such as abortion or migration.

Even centrist Christian Democrats considers that it is a text “ideologized”by the radical right.

“They promised the people that the new Constitution would solve Chile’s problems, that it would be a constitution of unity and it turned out that the first case was very left-wing, divisive; while in the second case it is more right-wing and people feel that this deepens the divisions even further. So there is a lot of dissatisfaction, discontent and disappointment with the process”, comments Chilean political analyst Patricio Navia.

These criticisms were also reflected in popular sentiment. The most recent survey, published by Pulso Ciudadano on August 29, showed that 69.7% of Chileans would vote “against” the proposed new Constitution, while 30.3% would be “in favor” of it.

“Research shows that rejection wins, but with substantial differences. What you quote marks 70%, others indicate it is 50%. I think it will be a little tighter than last time, I consider that any option can win but not more than 8% or 10%. If you ask me now, I think the rejection will win, but there are still a few weeks left to complete the process”, says Návia.

“In the previous process, the research was quite effective in recognizing very early on that there was no chance of the text being approved. The same thing happens now, but the reasons are different”Adds Avendaño.

The most worrying thing, however, would be that 67.7% of the population confessed that they had no or little confidence in the constitutional process.

“There is now more confusion around the content of the text among citizens. There was not enough publicity, especially because the project was only officially presented on Monday. What happened were partial versions that circulated in the press. Only now will the disclosure process begin”, comments Avendaño about this.

For the specialist from the University of Chile, the underlying problem lies in the fact that the debate on a new Constitution has ended up being a reinterpretation by politicians of the people’s needs. “The conclusion we reached is that changing the Constitution was not the main demand of citizens but rather the main proposal of the political class. And they insisted on this process, defined the conditions of both processes and even insisted on maintaining the process after the rejection of the 4th of September.“, ensures.

For Navia, the explanation would come before unproven promises. “In 2019 it was said that a new Constitution was a magic pill that would solve the country’s problems. It didn’t happen because it couldn’t happen and now people are very disappointed. The new constitutions deal with the political system and not public policies such as pensions or lack of growth. “I have the impression that people were sold a magic pill that ultimately didn’t work,” points.

In 2019, Chilean streets lit up in the so-called social outbreak, a demonstration of citizens’ disagreement with the political, social and economic model that has governed the south of the country since 1980.

Although trends may vary within 38 days, there is a high probability that this new constitutional proposal will be rejected by the Chilean population. Faced with this scenario, Gabriel Boric’s administration has already announced that it will not insist on a third process, despite certain pressures that would come from within the government coalition itself.

Regardless of the result, the two analysts consulted by The trade They agree that December 17th will represent a severe blow to the left and, probably, a stepping stone in the right’s aspirations to achieve power.

“It’s a big defeat for the left. In this, the right loses nothing, whether rejected or approved. The left, on the other hand, faces an almost absurd dilemma: accept the right’s proposal or validate Pinochet’s Constitution.,” says Avendaño.

“This is a significant and crushing defeat for the entire left that promoted the replacement of Pinochet’s Constitution and now appears to campaign for Pinochet’s Constitution to prevent the current right’s from being imposed. Pinochet is at least dead, but José Antonio Kast is alive, will run for president and will probably be the next president of Chile”, adds Návia.

Another factor that should be monitored will also be the citizens’ reaction to the results of December 17th. For Avendaño, who believes that political representatives failed in the challenge of adequately interpreting social demands, the unrest is already established and is unlikely to change with any of the results.

“It is difficult for this to cause greater discomfort because it is already installed regardless of the result. One of the most viable scenarios is for changes to the current Constitution to be made through agreements that can be reached through the National Congress. It must be taken into account that the current government and supporters of constitutional change do not have a majority in Congress, so it is possible to think about some specific changes, but not more substantive aspects.“, ensures.

Navia adds, in turn, that the population’s feeling is one of disconnection with the political class, as they see it as part of an elite that puts its interests above those of citizens. “In general, people distrust elites, including politicians. They feel like they are protecting each other and don’t take people’s needs into consideration. That’s why in the first process many independents were elected, but it turns out that they also didn’t care about the people, but rather about their own agendas”, states.

Source: Elcomercio