This Sunday, December 17, concludes the second constitutional referendum in Chile. This is the second attempt to draft a new constitution in four years. This process started after the resounding rejection of the first constitutional draft in September 2022, a project written by a convention leaning towards the most radicalized left, which irresponsibly did away with the republican institutionality and seemed like a woke manifesto with frankly bizarre, impracticable, contradictory dyes.
This political parade, as costly as it is, began with the annihilating coup of October 2019, when the organized left unleashed extreme violence on the country in a criminally coordinated action, similar to that seen in other places of the continent such as Ecuador or Colombia. The impotent Piñera government opted to placate the wave of insurgency by offering in exchange to draft a new constitution. The organizations that backed the destruction of the country in 2019 welcomed the offer as they aspired to erase 'the Pinochet Constitution,' and supported a constitutional project aimed at dismembering Chile, which was rejected by citizens.
Despite the fact that in October 2020 an overwhelming majority of Chileans were in favor of changing their constitution, the first attempt failed in September 2022, when 62% voted against the draft. Analysts argue that Chile has behaved in the last elections like a pendulum, going from drafting and subsequently rejecting one of the most leftist constitutional proposals in the world to handing the baton of the second constituent process to the right. But the truth is that the frenetic pendulum swing is more attributable to its elites than to its everyday citizens who are fed up with the madness.
President Boric, with his image in free fall, faces a referendum that may condition the final stretch of his government.
The draft that will be voted on this week has more than 200 articles. It was drafted by a body of 50 councilors elected last May, in which the center and the right had a majority, with 11 and 22 seats, respectively. The Republican Party, led by José Antonio Kast, was left with two-thirds of the seats on the Council and veto power in the voting of the norms. For this reason, now those who defend the "in favor" for next Sunday are those who campaigned for the "against" in the previous referendum.
But the Republican Party is going through an internal earthquake after some leaks were published in national media. The party has gone through some troubled times with the resignation of several militants, among them Rojo Edwards. Leader Teresa Marinovic, ex-conventional and director of the libertarian New Mind Foundation, accuses the Republican Party of committing "political clumsiness" when it is flagging for the "in favor." There is a large group of leaders and referents of libertarianism who claim that the Republicans surrendered to the left by changing the concept of a subsidiary state for one of social rights. This group of dissidents also rejects the new constitutional text, which is why the triumphant right wing of the last election is heading to the polls divided.
On the left front, the situation is no less chaotic. President Boric, with his failing image, faces a referendum that may condition the final stretch of his government. The left that brought him to power, and that supported a constitutional reform. it now against him. This has led him to support the continuity of the current constitution, which was, according to his vision of only a couple of years ago, the origin of all the country's problems. The polls have been indicating that people will vote "against" the referendum although in the last week there seems to have been an increase in people who will vote "in favor." Despite the current apathy, the demand for a new constitution was central for the leftist formations in 2019. In such a short period, Chileans seem to have had enough of the ups and downs of their elites, who have been confrontational, tense and stagnated for four years.
The confusing panorama is nourished by controversies opened by the same text that the right wing had the opportunity to draft according to its agenda. It is filled with concessions that alienate a huge sector of its own, while, at the same time, failing to convince the left. This is an exercise of political lukewarmness that seems to be the heritage of the Latin American right wing. For example, the draft declares Chile a social democratic state that "promotes the progressive development of social rights" through state institutions. The issue of environmental policy is also a matter of controversy since Article 212 assumes and constitutionalizes the issue of "climate change" and establishes a duty to promote international cooperation in line with the position taken supranationally on climate change.
Regarding indigenism, an uncontrolled evil in Chile that has led entire regions to chaos and ethnic terrorism, the new draft also seems to align itself with the leftist narrative. It accepts the recognition of indigenous collective rights in Article 5, the authorization to create special mechanisms of participation in Congress for indigenous peoples in Article 51 and to establish mechanisms for the promotion of indigenous collective rights at national, regional and local levels in Article 127. There are articles in question that limit the presidential power to withdraw from international treaties.
Chile was, until a few years ago, a nation with development indexes much higher than the average for the region. It was the submission to the woke narrative and the cowardice and improvisation of its elites that plunged the nation into a decadent and impoverishing polarization. Today, not only is the presidential image wrecked but, according to surveys, more than 80% of the citizens disapprove of the entire political class. Each half of the population believes whatever the other half votes for will bring uncertainty, injustice and chaos. If the new constitutional draft is approved, it will be a triumph of a political sector despised by the entire center-left and left sector, and challenged by an important sector of former allies. If it is finally rejected, the current constitution will remain in effect, which was the excuse for the long and painful process of constituent comings and goings that will end up in nothing, an inexplicable mess. In this case, the constitutional debate will be closed, at least during the current term of office, because the government said it will not promote a third attempt.
