Following the onslaught of UDI’s “neoliberal agenda 2.0,” in which they proposed measures such as the privatization of Codelco or the sale of National Television (TVN) to alleviate the economic crisis caused by the covid-19 pandemic, trade unionism returned to the charge with a project that aims to alter the realization of the constitutional process of October 25.
This new play of the Rejection consists of a reform to Article 130 of the Constitution, eliminating the option of the Constituent Convention, to be replaced by the National Congress. The argument? The same one that was used in the presentation of the neoliberal agenda 2.0: the economic consequences of the coronavirus pandemic and the high cost of carrying out the constituent process.
“Indeed, only as regards remuneration, the technical committee established that the constituent convention members will be remunerated at $2,513,600 (50 UTM), which is multiplied by the 155 persons to be elected, results in expenditure of more than 4.5 billion pesos in remuneration, if the operation of the convention extends by twelve months” , says the UDI project to which El Mostrador accessed.
“However, the above calculation is not complete, since no other expenses to which those who take such functions are entitled have been considered, such as regulatory allocations, food, transport and travel expenses for those from regions. In addition, it should be borne in mind that it must also be disbursed in infrastructure, responsible administrative staff, officials and advisers,” they add.
Next, they argue that “bearing in mind the special economic and social context in which we are immersed, it is necessary to rethink the origin or not of this expenditure. In this sense, it arises as a natural alternative, that of granting mandate for the drafting of a new constitution to the National Congress, given that this
the body has sufficient human, financial and technical resources to deal with this important task.”
Monthly expenses
According to the UDI, the expense of an eventual constituent convention plus the National Congress would be $4,218,290,836 per month and $50,619,490,032 a year.
Meanwhile, assuming that most voters chose the mixed convention for the drafting of a new Fundamental Charter, the cost – coupled with the regular operation of Congress – would be $4,044,852,436 per month and $48,538,229,232 per year.
Finally, they point out that if Congress were the body responsible for drafting the Constitution, the cost to the state would be $3,828,682,836 per month and $45,944,194,032 per year.
In this regard, they clarify that “the present draft constitutional reform does not seek to ignore the agreements reached by the different political parties in October 2019, but to refine and adapt it, since the factual conditions that today surround the plebiscite are diametrically different from those in force in 2019. In this way, it seeks to give the public the possibility of choosing, in a democratic way, the drafting body of the new Constitution”.
Fiscal responsibility
The document argues that “if a deep but stationary and rapidly overcoming crisis was planned at the beginning of the pandemic, today the great experts are discussing the possible ways in which global economic revival takes and how long it takes for each economy to return to pre-pandemic conditions.”
They add that “forecasts are not entirely favourable and the possibility of a major decline in socioeconomic issues, equivalent to ten years of growth, has been predicted, which will undoubtedly impact on the most vulnerable sectors of the country and the middle class. Thus, fiscal responsibility and revival and investment incentive programmes have become – again – a central axis of government.”
“In this regard, there is particular concern to the subscribed Members of this draft constitutional reform, the significant fiscal expenditure that the electoral calendar of this and next year will entail for our country, as well as the expenditure that will entail the process of drafting the new constitution, considering that a new body, whether constitutional convention or mixed convention, should be established.”
They ensure that this project “seeks to generate a savingsmodifying the options of bodies that can draft the new constitution, replacing the alternative constitutional convention with that of the National Congress, so that it is the public who makes such a decision.”
 by “secretariat” because it would be very expensive){kind=link}