There is no doubt that the constituent process generates, and will generate, the attention of a good part of the citizenry. All, more or less, perform different omens regarding the course of the process; some augur lights, others darkness.
Regarding the genesis of the process, everyone installs it in the events that occurred from October 18, 2019; the explosion that occurred that day, had in turn a genesis for which those who, at some point in the transition that began in 1989, became fugitives from duty and concentrated on issuing ballots to receive financing from large companies have not been held responsible. Moreira said it: everyone did it, directly or indirectly, without any shame and those who did not, simply looked to the side. In other words, they indulged in corruption. The ordinary citizen, the one who gets on the bus and travels hours to come and go, the one who pays taxes, the small businessman, etc., saw the scandals, the crude explanations, the defenses of the indefensible and got bored.
Was it all bad? Fortunately not, because today, although with large debts in tow, there is a mass of educated citizens who are able to understand and realize when they want to put their finger in their mouths. From there (from education and, by the way, from multiple other factors), Chile has moved towards a society where diversity is tolerated and the
existence of many looks, varied ways of being and thinking. That educated mass is the one that manifested itself massively in the various marches that were carried out throughout Chile, and as a result of such movements is that it was possible to reach the constituent process that today is on the right to reach the text that will be submitted to plebiscite during this
year. It is a new mass, young, and with a more supportive and optimistic view of the world.
The process has been the object, as we noted before, of augurs of various disasters that, first before the proposals of the former candidates for the Convention, and then at the beginning of it, foresaw that the result would be disastrous, since it was intended to start from scratch. The lightness of such a statement has been maintained from the beginning, since the departure from zero,
in addition to being impossible, it has not been proposed. Remember that, logically, the constitutional text must contemplate an accumulation of rules that establish the itinerary that will be followed to leave the old house and settle in the new one. That itinerary should indicate where to start and the times needed to build the new house. That is, the new
Constitution is not the new house; it is the plan to build the famous house and it will be the parliamentarians, in the new Congress, whether unicameral or bicameral, who must build it through various laws that, respecting the text and the constitutional itinerary, allow us to move without major inconveniences.
At the time of writing, the Convention has already adopted some rules which are likely to reach the final text as adopted. So far, and despite some crazy proposals, nothing from the other world has been approved. However, a significant number of, for the most part, people appear who are very comfortable in the current house that shelters us; that is, they are incumbents. In this house they have done well, they can travel, most in first and to exotic destinations to enjoy sports shows, and they also have access to exclusive dependencies of the house that they are reluctant to leave. Yellows say to themselves, and they cry out in the future that they will be, criticize and raise their voices if, as it is smelled, some Chavista madness is proposed that leads our thin country to disaster. I listen to Warnken and De Gregorio and “feel” that something like this can happen; they ask them what they concretely consider crazy so far and simply state that they “feel”, they say that “it seems to them”, without pointing out anything precise. They are particularly concerned that the right is not excluded; but it is a matter of seeing the votes of the Plenary of the Convention and it will be possible to appreciate that in various articles there was also the support of part of the right. In other words, those who exclude themselves, apparently, are only those of that more conservative right and not the center-right, as the Yellows claim.
Then, the claim of the letter signed by so many heroes seems more of patterns of fundo than of Yellows (they are defined as those who are reasonable, who do things gradually and responsibly.le). The pattern of fundo, as we said some time ago, is the one that holds that things should be as he claims they should be, that any other possibility is, mind you, disastrous; he arranges, by himself and before himself, when he is on the right track and when by the crooked. By the way, anyone who does not follow his designs is a pariah, a negative element, unworthy of being taken into account and, in the face of any threat to his convictions, does not hesitate to take the corrective actions that he deems pertinent. The rule of law is him.
Thus, by saying the Yellows who “feel” that the constituent process is not being carried out according to what they estimate, that it “seems” to them that it is not the right thing to present proposals that they consider incorrect, they are precisely acting as patterns of foundation. They forget that the quorum of the Plenary, very high, was defended tooth and nail.
by several of the signatories of the yellowish letter, and that the plebiscite and the election of conventional ones was forceful. However, they argue that the recent presidential election showed that the right is more relevant than the 20% it obtained in the citizen consultation and subsequent elections. They forget that for the plebiscite not only the left campaigned for approval, but also a good part of the right; the presidential result cannot be seen to maintain that the right, in advance, will also reject the new constitutional text.
But the Yellows say that if it is done as they say, with dialogue (which is what there has been most in the Convention), with restraint (which is what has prevailed in the votes of the Plenary), and without destroying “the good” (destruction that no one has proposed, without prejudice to the “hot heads” who have not prospered in the Convention, for they are a minority), they will be satisfied and will not raise their voices; but it is a sine qua non condition that things are done as they see fit and not as the conventional ones deem. This is another peculiarity of the farm pattern: everyone else is wrong. Only they possess the right formula to make things happen correctly. The claim of these Yellows seems excessive to me; it would have been more decent and humble if the signatories, many academics and leading professionals, made themselves available to the Convention, of the country, and not in a position where it inevitably falls into catastrophism. It seems that the other signatories, prominent fugitives from duty and who have no more love than the one they have lost, patterns of foundation in the long run (the abyss returned their gaze), weighed more.