We are definitely already on the right ground. In fact, it seems to me that a good part of the people have already made their decision, obviously, without seeing the final text (I am one of them!). When we look at the final text, what we are going to do is simply look for arguments to support the decision we have already made. Now, one thing is the decision taken in the plebiscite of September 4 and another is the attitude that we should have, as a society, in the face of that result. Whatever it is. That attitude can be none other than to de-dramatize the results and accept them in peace and tranquility.
If rejection wins, the constitution proposed by the convention will never enter into force. Full stop. It will be necessary to look for alternatives so that the will of almost 80% of the voters who in the plebiscite of entry answered that they did want a new constitution, is reflected in a new text. However, as long as we do not have that new constitution, the one of 80 (with all its reforms) will remain in force. Those are the rules we self-imposed. Whether we like them or not.
If the approval wins. By any margin (50.01%, for example), the constitution proposed by the convention will enter into force, as indicated by the rules that were agreed and that are part of the current constitution. Polls will no longer matter, nor the rules we didn’t like. The only important thing will be the result at the polls. That will be our new constitution (our house of tod@s) and we must respect it (and, above all, abide by it) whether or not we voted approve.
In this regard, I think it may be interesting to look at the recent experience that the UNITED Kingdom had with BREXIT. As you know, the United Kingdom has no written constitution (or, at least, not in a single document), however, leaving the EU (a body to which they were linked, in their different versions, for around 50 years) was something as traumatic or more traumatic than changing the constitution. Well, the result of the referendum was 52% “leave” the EU and 48% “remain” (the case of Scotland is interesting, where 62% voted “remain” in the EU and only 38% voted “leave”). The issue was even more complex, as the referendum was not even binding. However, despite all the above, the United Kingdom made the decision to abide by the rules of the game that had self-imposed and leave the EU, despite the narrow margin, that the plebiscite was not binding and all the difficulties with the borders between the “Irelands” (which they realized after brexit was approved).
In conclusion, the attitude that we as a society should have on September 5 is to be able to abide by the rules of the game that we self-imposed. Just as the English did with BREXIT. Abiding by the rules of the game cannot be contingent on whether we like the outcome of the game (or, worse, what the polls say). In my opinion, this (and not income) per capita) is what makes the difference between a developed country and one that is not. The democratic rules of the game are fulfilled… although they hurt, just as they did with BREXIT. No buts, excuses, no contexts.
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.
