translated from Spanish: The Unreason of Rejection – The Counter

The causes of the social outburst of October 18, 2019 are known to all. Even if the incumbents have claimed to the full that no one saw it coming, the truth is that there were abundant diagnoses of the consequences of the repeated abuses that for thirty years were made public.
Surprising was to see various political actors, from A to Z, unfolding from the causes of the crisis. I seem to see Elizalde claiming, in a morning morning, that he was a newcomer to Congress; I mean, I’m registered… Or Moreira claiming that behind all this was the international communist plot, little less than the return of Plan Z.
In the same way, and realizing a first reason, they all made a guilt: we didn’t realize it, the abuses (of the others, not mine) were too many. Francisco Vidal, for example, has never explained what he was doing on the Board of the State Bank, in circumstances where his professional skills, as far as we know, do not extend to finance. Moreira, for her side, after confessing her crimes and reaching agreements to purge the sentences, claims very highly notful that her innocence was established.
In fact, the list of abuses committed from the left to the right is extensive. You could write several books (actually, they have already been written…), about the abuse of business, political, trade union, uniform, civilian, militant and sympathizers from political sectors.
Thus, as we said at the beginning, the outburst was predictable. Then, when the crisis occurred, and when those responsible are identified, they agree, much of those responsible, that the obstacle to overcoming inequities is the Constitution; let’s ask the people if we changed it, Piñera said, and the incumbents met and agreed on a plebiscite. In any case, let’s not forget that soon walking, Allamand and other “Democrats, ” were sloping.
This plebiscite, we are told, aims to determine whether we change the Constitution or maintain it and, in the first case, if we do so with a mixed convention, composed of parliamentarians and elected citizens for that purpose, or a constituent convention, composed only of elected citizens for this purpose.
So, in the face of disjunctive, and as must happen in a democratic framework, there are those who argue that the constitution should not be changed, but must be under profound reform. I insist, this is because democracy allows for different choices, according to the particular convictions of each person.
However, and here is the object of this short and simple column, it is sufficient to give a couple of twists to the idea of rejection attached to deep reforms, to realize the inconsistency of such a position. Indeed, as I pointed out, it was those responsible who have led the feast since 1990 (I mean, without exception, left and right); Let us not forget that in practice, binominal by, the state leadership was held by the two conglomerates who took turns mainly in parliament, and then in government. I mean, from the Communist party to the UDI. It was they who led the country to the situation it is in today. Poor retirements, hunger pay, total indifference to children, poor quality public education and health, etc.; we already said it: the list is long.
So, if rejection were to succeed, we will find ourselves in an unusual setting: it will be the same political parties, the same characters in power, who will make the “changes” that the constitution needs circumstances the suit to be made will not be tailored to the tailor? What about water, the health business and the education business? Does anyone believe that the incumbents, responsible for the deescalation, will adjust the constitution to shed their power? And if we give it a run-off, the option of the mixed convention leaves us in practically the same situation: the presence of the current Parliamentarians will only cause the changes, more apparent than real, to guarantee them the maintenance of their privileges.
It is clear that the choice of rejection carries a remarkable unreason. Politicians, all of them, have support that does not exceed 3%, that is, and according to the margin of error, support can be significantly lower, even less than 1%. Leaving reforms to the constitution in the hands of such individuals is literally like leaving the cat looking after the carnage. Remember that you have not even reduced your wages, that you have not given up the privileges, that you have claimed time and time again your innocence after asking for pot scrapes, you have been caught with briefcases with cash, which have denied having responsibility in the crisis and everything, absolutely everything, they have said, is Fuenteovejuna’s responsibility.
Unfortunately we have been puppets of a deplorable political class, which made us live for thirty years under the pinochet dictatorship. They have blamed each other and repeatedly, which more than any less, they have spread the poison of fear in the population so that things remain the same. Opting for rejection or, eventually, the mixed convention, leads us only to one result: cat-parsing, that is, will change everything so that everything remains the same. The reason for the unreason, not that of Quixote, romantic him, but that perverse and indifferent in the face of the ailments of the citizens; the unreason of rejection.

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