Is the current Constitution pinochet’s or that of four generals? Absolutely not!

A few days ago we heard the recently assumed president Gabriel Boric, say in an interview with Archi that “any result will be better” than a fundamental letter “written by four generals”, referring to the constituent process that is being carried out in our country.
The question I ask myself today then, is the current Constitution, one written by four generals? The answer is a resounding no.
Yes, the Constitution of 1980 was written in dictatorship, that is a reality. Its draft was prepared by the Ortúzar commission, formed among others by Enrique Ortúzar Escobar, Rafael Eyzaguirre Echeverría, Jaime Guzmán Errázuriz, Jorge Ovalle Quiroz, Sergio Diez Urzúa and Gustavo Lorca. Some resigned during the process, being replaced by Luz Bulnes Aldunate, Raúl Beltersen Repetto and Juan de Dios Carmona. All prestigious lawyers and several of them constitutionalists. This draft was reviewed and modified by the Council of State, composed of the former presidents of the Republic, Jorge Alessandri and Gabriel González Videla (Eduardo Frei Montalva did not agree to participate), a former president of the Supreme Court; a former Comptroller General, a former ambassador, a former Minister of State, a former rector and academics, representatives of the Armed Forces, Carabineros and social organizations.
It is true that many of them finally opposed the final wording, defended mainly by Jaime Guzmán and yes, it is true, it would be approved before being submitted to a plebiscite, by the National Government Board, made up of Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, José Toribio Merino Castro, Fernando Matthei Aubel and César Mendoza Durán, the four generals.
On September 11, 1980, the aforementioned plebiscite was held for its approval, although at the time there were no electoral records, winning the Yes vote with 67.04% of the votes. According to what was reported, 6,271,868 people voted and it is known that there were accusations of fraud headed by Eduardo Frei Montalva.
So far history would seem to agree with the president, but let’s see what happened next.
In 1989, even in dictatorship, a process of constitutional reforms began, the first very substantive, consisting of 54 changes, whose main objective was to expressly contemplate political pluralism, through political participation, to affirm the democratic and participatory principle of citizenship, with the inclusion of more powers, leaving behind the exercise of constituent power, in the hands, until then, of the Governing Board. Then, with the return to democracy, reforms continue and two are carried out in 1991, one in 1994, one in 1996, three in 1997, four in 1999, two in 2000, one in 2001 and one in 2003. Until 2005 we already had 16 constitutional reforms, whose main objective was to promote citizen participation. The most relevant for democracy are the one of 1994, which reduces the presidential mandate from eight to six years, whose purpose, established in the message of the law, was to improve the structuring of the political system, and the one of 1999 that establishes the 2nd round in presidential elections. Only in 2001 was film censorship eliminated, replacing it with a rating system, enshrining the right to free artistic creation.
All of the above leads us to the 2005 reform, promoted by President Ricardo Lagos Escobar, which promises to end Pinochet’s Constitution, drafted by renowned constitutionalists and approved by an immense majority in Parliament. On August 26, 2005, Law No. 20,050, known as the “Great Reform”, was published in the Official Gazette, which included 54 amendments. The greatest innovations are associated with the new Constitutional Court, it contemplates a more controlled presidentialism, sets the guidelines in parallel to the Courts of Justice and supposes a greater control to the legislator, eliminates the appointed and life senators, reduces the presidential mandate from 6 to 4 years, modifies the National Security Council (COSENA) and it is determined that only the president of the Republic can convene it, modifies the system of replacements of parliamentarians, both senators and deputies, increases the supervisory powers of the Chamber of Deputies, empowers the president to remove the commanders in chief of the Armed Forces and the general director of the Carabineros, and eliminates the function of being “guarantors of institutionality” to the Armed Forces.
Disappear here, all enclauthoritarian birds left by the Pinochet dictatorship. The Constitution was signed by Ricardo Lagos Escobar, President of the Republic, and all his ministers, including Francisco Vidal Salinas, Minister of the Interior; Ignacio Walker Prieto, Minister of Foreign Affairs; Nicolás Eyzaguirre Guzmán, Minister of Finance; Sergio Bitar Chacra, Minister of Education; Luis Bates Hidalgo, Minister of Justice; Jaime Campos Quiroga, Minister of Agriculture; Pedro García Aspillaga, Minister of Health; and Yasna Provoste Campillay, Minister of Planning. Will they all renege on the Constitution they signed? I doubt it, indeed, I believe that its character is profoundly democratic.
The words that President Ricardo Lagos said on September 17, 2005, days after the law was reflected in the Official Gazette, were: “This is a very big day for Chile. We have reason to celebrate. Today we finally have a democratic Constitution, in accordance with the spirit of Chile, of the permanent soul of Chile, it is our best tribute to independence, to the glories of the homeland, to the glory and strength of our national understanding, Chileans and Chileans today springs stand out”. After 2005 and to date, no less than 35 more constitutional amendments have been made, bringing the total to 51, each consisting of multiple changes.
And then? Here I get confused. What are President Boric’s arguments for denouncing the current Constitution? Why do we call it undemocratic? How much is really left of the 1980 Constitution? Are President Lagos’ words a simple slogan? Aren’t we playing into the hands of the radical left? Communist MP Carmen Hertz argues: “We must never forget that it has an illegitimate and spurious origin. The Constitution of the eighties has been called by someone, the constitution of gatopardism, since it is a Constitution that is changed, changed, changed and everything remains the same.” To me, these words seem like a fallacy and the facts described prove it.
I do not intend to detract from the constituent process that is taking place in Chile, nor do I oppose it and would like it to be successful, but I am afraid of what the Convention publishes until today as a draft of the Constitution. Believe me, I would prefer that the current wording be substantively improved so that it represents all sectors and wins by a large majority, hopefully more than 70%. But if the result of this is inadequate and unrepresentative of Chileans, it leaves out the thought and beliefs of important sectors of our society and I do not mean only the right, which represents neither more nor less than 40% of the population, but also sectors of center and center-left, I remind you that today we are governed by a democratic, viable Constitution that gives us stability and a sense of citizenship. It is also evident that if the rejection were to occur, a new constituent process will be required in the future, plebiscite before the citizens, which modifies the current Constitution that governs us, again, in a profound way, to grant better recognition to those who populated this land and its cultures before our Independence, more than 200 years ago and to ensure that the State puts itself at the service of citizens in an efficient way and timely and not the other way around, but do not forget, we must be governed by a single State and we are one people, Chile.

The content expressed in 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