translated from Spanish: You never have to make a deal with the mistake

The great Mahatma Gandhi said that “you must never make a deal with the error, even if it is sustained by sacred texts.” And he was right.
We all know that the agreement signed on 15 November by Parliament, which establishes the way for a plebiscite to convene a constituent process and thus be able to write a new Constitution, was made in very good faith, but which was defuncent with fundamental things: joint representation of constituents; representation of indigenous peoples and/or undergoing the indigenous consultation process. In addition, he forgot to incorporate in the agreement the social movements and did not consider the alternative proposed by the municipal world.
I’m sure it was because of the tiredness and pressure of having to come to an agreement that same night, given the threat of a military coup, which was the secret to voices that was whispered that day by the houses of all Chile. Thus, in the early morning of 15 November, we saw the Parliamentarians communicating the agreement. Some were crying, others with their faces to the ground, and others looked proud.
It is assumed that this agreement would mark the end of the mobilizations and show the way out of the social crisis in which we find ourselves. But that idea lasted no more than 12 hours, on the afternoon of November 15 again the Plaza de la Dignidad, former Plaza Italia, was the meeting point of thousands of people who came together to ask for the departure of the President, Sebastián Piñera.

What happened? Why were the mobilizations continuing? The agreement was in trouble. They seem to have forgotten the massive march of March 8 last year or the worldwide identification that has had the performance “a rapist on your way” of #LasTesis. Nothing tells them that the only flag that is recognized and that flys from the first day of the mobilizations is the Mapuche flag. What to say about who the convocations are to the marches: the social world and a large majority on the streets that are independent, and do not identify with any political party.
They quickly realized that the customary omission – women, indigenous and independent – this time would cost them a hard time. The mood is not to let her through, not this time.
Opportunities to mend this error have been squandered so far. First, by appointing a technical group that not only failed to achieve any way to enlarge the agreement, but narrowed it down and bet on Parliament’s renounced policy by pointing out short and time-limits for approving everything, on the grounds that “this is indicated by the law.” They did not understand their role, as if their appointment did not respond to any events like the one that is happening – today more than 60 days of mobilization – as if Congress could not agree on a short law for new terms.
Apparently here the idea was to restrict the possibility of good agreements – other times it has been done, it is a subject of will and conviction – everything is talked about under pressure and when time runs out, you remember what is achieved. There is no new deadline to resolve in property.
Then, on Wednesday, December 18, the Chamber of Deputies refused the possibility of giving citizen support and consistency to the November agreement, by rejecting the indication of incorporating parity into constituents, guaranteeing indigenous representation quotas and the nomination of independents, so that they do not have to do so through political parties. The reason: “to comply with the agreement”, as the agreement on the night of November 15 did not incorporate these issues.
I do not know the reasons why that night these issues were not incorporated into the agreement, but I can say that the decision of the representatives of the Chamber of Deputies was short-sighted, flying ground, clinging to an agreement that is clearly “insufficient”, demonstrated by the month of post-agreement mobilizations and by the municipal consultation carried out on Sunday 15 December by 220 municipalities with a high vote of more than 2 million people.
There, in that consultation, the public clearly asked for parity of constituents, representation of indigenous peoples, incorporation of independents, that the constituents be 100% citizens elected for these purposes and that persons convicted of corruption, money laundering or drug trafficking are prohibited from running to popular election charges and fiscal jobs for life. With this result in hand, MPs clearly should have understood that the agreement was “a floor” not “the ceiling,” the “from”, not the “to”.
If you want the plebiscite to be part of the solution and not a problem, move forward to incorporate, not restrict, and if you must make a short law for new deadlines, they do, as it once happened when the D.C. was late to register for a municipal election and it was resolved with will.
Otherwise, the plebiscite risks being a failure because it could be very few people and the solution would become “the” problem. They have the opportunity to make history, of the good, of the same as we will do when we write our new Constitution, which we will write for a need for a new deal for the next 50 years, the first other than an imposition after an act of force as a coup d’état.
Listen to Mahatma Gandhi: “You must never make a deal with the error, even if it is sustained by sacred texts.”

The content poured into this opinion column is the sole responsibility of its author, and does not necessarily reflect the editorial line or position of El Mostrador.

Original source in Spanish

Related Posts

Add Comment