On September 4, the proposal for a new Constitution that offered one of the most comprehensive chapters in the history of our country in terms of social and labor rights was rejected by a large majority. The rights set out in the text on housing, health, education and social security responded to the long and delayed demands of social movements and sought to repair the damage caused by a neoliberal system that has made a significant sector of the population precarious. Although few sectors question the legitimacy of this article, and despite becoming the floor to move towards a new constitutional text, the formulation of these social rights and their promise of social justice were not enough to mobilize the vast majority of citizens for their approval.
While the post-plebiscite debate focuses on certain problems that afflicted the constituent process, such as the increase in electoral participation, the impact of fake news and the shortcomings of the proposal on the political and justice system, it is necessary to ask why the proposal of social rights and guarantees failed to enchant those who live and work in precarious conditions.
It is partly important to underline that social rights are not abstract, but are lived and exercised in concrete spaces and situations. To process a pension, ask for an hour, apply for a subsidy or get a bed in a hospital, it is necessary to go to an office at a certain time, present papers and certificates, and interact with those who administer the benefits and rights. Historically, this process has been marked by scrutiny by welfare professionals and bureaucrats. The token, the social worker’s visit, and the invasive questions have been used to distribute and assign benefits to those who “deserve” them and exclude those who do not qualify. Many times, these mechanisms have been discriminatory, sexist, or racist, stigmatizing those who request assistance, limiting the exercise of social rights or generating negative and traumatic experiences. In 2017, for example, Joane Florvil, a Haitian immigrant, was accused of child abandonment at the doors of an office and died after being unjustly detained.
Sociologist Javier Auyero, who has studied welfare systems in Argentina, explains that the most impoverished urban sectors have developed strategies and ways of relating to an incomplete and crisis-ridden public system. To access the State, Auyero points out, people “have learned to be patients of the State.” And while this is a form of domination, it is also a strategy of adaptation and survival in the face of the uncertainty that defines today’s society. In Chile, despite the existence of a neoliberal economic system and a Constitution that has promoted the subsidiary role of the State in social matters, it continues to be, as Auyero proposes for Argentina, a “key actor in the lives of the dispossessed.” At this juncture marked by an incomplete, limited and discriminatory social state, people have learned to wait, to apply for bonds, and to navigate the public bureaucracy. The system does not cover all needs, but offers a certain level of protection that many can aspire to.
While the promised social rights were and continue to be an attractive agenda for much of the population, this chapter was, to some extent, a lengthy statement of principles. These principles were also difficult to visualize when the historical experience of relating to the State teaches that there are always tricks, procedures and obstacles. It is true that some presented the social agenda as a way to restore the rights lost more than fifty years ago, but this was a rather romanticized vision of our old welfare state. In reality, this social state only effectively protected some sectors such as public employees and the private sector, but discriminated against women, the peasantry and the poor of the city. For example, one of the major problems with the old social security system was that employers did not pay taxes or declare the minimum. These abuses were frequent in the case of domestic workers.
Making social rights a reality involves democratizing the State and its welfare services, critically reviewing the forms of exclusion and discrimination, establishing control mechanisms and, above all, listening to the needs, dreams and demands of all Chileans.
Follow us on
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.
