Podcast: Why does the right have split opinions about the constitutional referendum in Chile?

Chile's constitutional referendum has divided the right and generated significant debate. This Sunday, December 17, Chileans will again vote on whether to change the 1980 Constitution to adopt a new text written by the committee elected in 2023. But on both the right and the left, there are conflicting opinions. In today's podcast, we talk with Javier Silva, a Ciudadano Austral think tank member, about the different opinions and key points of the new Constitution that will be put to the vote.

Silva affirms that the new text, although written by a right-wing majority committee, deepens leftist ideas and includes new problems that the 1980 text did not have. So he undoubtedly ensures that the new proposal, which will be voted on Sunday, is the worst option for the country.

However, the consequences of this decision are not so simple, which is why, within the right, people are calling to vote in favor of the new text; others are urging to vote against it, and there are also those who, like our guest today, prefer not to vote, since they consider that the real discussion goes beyond the Constitution and that regardless of Sunday's vote, the left will continue to advance to promote yet another constitution. Furthermore, they see the decision not to vote as a protest to right-wing politicians who negotiated with the left and allowed the 2022 popular vote to be overridden when Chileans flatly rejected the idea of a new constitution.

The political analyst explains that part of the traditional right, which participated in the creation of this new text, is promoting it as a final solution in the face of the insistence of the left to change the Constitution, but that they also openly affirm that the text has leftists ideas and that is why, even from that right, the left is called to vote to approve. But there is also another part of the right that recognizes that this text is worse and, therefore, calls for its rejection. Finally, there are those who, like Silva, believe that the discussion is about substance, not one text or another and that the only option is to cast a vote rejecting this draft and demand honest discussions.