Claudio Fuentes’ figures

On April 6, a column by Claudio Fuentes, professor of political science at the Diego Portales University, was published in Ciper, entitled “When the right crosses the fence: case-by-case analysis of their votes in the Convention.” In his writing, the political scientist analyzes the votes of the Plenary of the Constitutional Convention, where he seeks to install the following thesis: “There is an illusion of blockade or lack of participation (on the right) that is not consistent with the behavior in terms of votes.” For the professor, it would be “a myth to point out that no one on the right is participating (at least with their votes) in the approval of the new text.”
I believe, however, that Professor Fuentes uses the data to fit his story, that the right is part of the final text.
First, it is not necessary to have huge databases to know that the figures show a reality very different from that related by the columnist. Practically all the proposals that are presented in committees by the center-right are rejected, which forces that sector to vote only left-wing proposals in the Plenary. Only 2 of the 482 paragraphs already approved by the plenary come from these groups, therefore, the draft Constitution is 99.99% authored by the left. Moreover, it is not only the centre-right that has been excluded from the drafting of the text, a large part of the proposals of the former Concertación have been systematically rejected and a similar fate has suffered a significant number of popular initiatives of norm, even those that gathered a greater number of sponsorships.
Secondly, the analysis is limited to identifying a limited number of approved standards, without analyzing the content of them, which generates obvious problems when drawing conclusions. All the Constitutions of the world, even the most partisan and divisive, contain multiple non-problematic articles, it is enough to review Constitutions of authoritarian countries such as Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua. A few specific rules that allow the capture of institutions or that unprotect minorities are enough to generate a polarizing and undemocratic Constitution. Thus, it is not surprising that right-wing conventionals, critics of the type of Constitution that is being approved, nevertheless approve some of its articles, as well as conventional ones very critical of the current Constitution, such as Jaime Bassa and Fernando Atria, have included among their proposals articles identical to those of the current fundamental charter.
The right has been excluded from the constituent process. The conventional Barraza has been precisely honest about the true vision of many conventional ones in relation to the breadth of the agreements: “If there are more than 150 approved norms, it is because those 150 norms have reached transversality.” That is, two-thirds are all the transversality that is required. They are convinced that the former Concertación represents less than 5% of the country and that the right does not represent more than 1/4 of the population. Thus, any text that approves the Convention and that has generated a consensus of two-thirds of its representatives would be destined to sweep the plebiscite on September 4.
However, it is possible that this analysis is wrong. It is possible that for different reasons; errors of its opponents, conjunctural events and, especially, by unprecedented electoral rules (reserved seats and lists of independents), the hardest left is overrepresented in the Convention. It is possible then that the two-thirds composed only of the left in the plenary will give procedural legitimacy to the final text, but not substantive legitimacy, not a transversal citizen consensus.
Risking a unique and hardly repeatable process by basing the behavior on the thesis that the agreements are already sufficiently transversal is a bad idea. Betting on greater degrees of consensus seems to be the way to go. That is why the fanciful use of figures to make a corporate defense of the Convention is counterproductive. Self-criticism is positive and allows to generate a better text, complacency, especially when it is encouraged by conclusions that do not emerge from the data, only makes it difficult to achieve the best possible Constitution.

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