It has been a difficult week, a week of reflection, because the resounding electoral defeat was a very hard blow for those of us who believe in the need to build a country based on social justice and inclusion. We have experienced difficult processes in recent years – since before the revolt – which forces us to think calmly. This is a defeat that must be analyzed politically, to understand what meaning the result of the September plebiscite and its projection could have, since there is a transversal commitment to have a new Constitution – although that commitment has been diluted during this first post-plebiscite week.
The reasons for a Rejection
The first thing is to recognize that we are a diverse people that we thought we represented adequately, but the truth is that we do not know each other well enough. The political and social forces of the Apruebo did not know how to speak to that people or connect correctly with their diversity, while the Rejection did.
The unprecedented diversity in the integration of the Convention was not enough. For whatever reason and with the political interpretation that we want to put on the table, the truth is that the Rejection found a way to connect with different popular feelings and that is a defeat for those of us who have been pushing the social changes that point towards stages of greater equality. For the rest, voter turnout reached a historic percentage that should be valued positively: that 85%, even if voting is compulsory, is good news.
The Rejection option, which won more than 60% of the vote, brought together voters who had different reasons for rejecting the proposed new Constitution. Reasons, by the way, valid, that must not only be respected, but must also be identified and answered, especially if we have the conviction to continue the process of building a new Constitution. Although we do not know exactly how much each of them weighs, it is very important to consider that there are different Rejections.
On the one hand, there is the Rejection of those who do not want a new Constitution and who have defended – and continue to do so, as we have seen this week – the constitutional project still in force; those who do not want, and will never want, a new Constitution. There is a Rejection that manifested itself against the solidarity mechanisms of financing and provision of social rights, especially in education, health and social security, intensively used by his campaign; perhaps in an individualist or propitiarist key, they voted against properly universal social rights, despite the fact that this has been one of the most intense social demands of recent decades. We cannot ignore that there is a neoliberal subjectivity that will not change just because a Constitution says something different, because it responds to a rationality not only economic, but political, which is quite established in our society. The rejection of solidarity solutions to the basic problems of social unrest should lead us to review how this neoliberal rationality has been normalized, since it is part of the conditions that make possible – or prevent – any future change.
There is another Rejection that was expressed against the indigenous content of the constitutional proposal, which read in it a dismemberment of society and not the recognition of its diversity, an issue that his campaign also strongly encouraged. There are union or corporate reasons that concurred in the Rejection, especially from particular interests linked, for example, to water rights, to the AFP, to certain civil servant careers or to the legal design of institutions whose configuration changed significantly with the new Constitution. There is a Rejection that was expressed in defense of what many saw as an attack or a weakening of private property, as well as the modes of accumulation currently in force in the country.
There is also a dimension of the Rejection that is expressed against gender equality and the recognition of sexual diversity, which has been systematically expressed in recent years criticizing the so-called “gender ideology”. There are Rejections that saw their religious freedom threatened. There is a Rejection that manifested itself in defense of the traditions and patriotic symbols that did not feel – I believe without reason – properly recognized. In some sense, there is a Rejection that voted against the mechanisms of protection of nature, perhaps as a reaction to protect the freedom of enterprise.
There is, also, a generic Rejection politics and politicians, especially by those who saw in the Convention “more of the same” or “the same as always”; here the early strategy of the Rejection of showing the Convention as if it were the same as the Chamber of Deputies was very cunning. It is part of the contemporary crisis of institutionality, a dimension of social unrest that distrusts the capacity of political power to respond to the demands of citizens – for example, to give effective protection to rights.
In some sense, the exit plebiscite shares the destitution dimension that the entry plebiscite had, making it clear how difficult it is to build collectively in times of crisis of confidence. It is necessary to review what are the necessary conditions to constitute and if we have these conditions: that the social unrest unfolds its constituent power is, still, a pending task.
Along with these different reasons for the Rejection may be the impact of the falsehoods that were installed over the last year, of the undeclared electoral expenditure on the deep internet and of disinformation regarding the content of the proposal for a new Constitution, issues that show a relevant challenge in the short term, since they suppose conditions of possibility for democratic political activity. In this regard, I believe that there is a lack of sufficient background to issue a pronouncement, but it is a phenomenon that crosses our borders and that we cannot ignore.
Finally, we must consider the criticism of the work of the Convention, fueled by some facts and conduct attributable to its members, which were intelligently amplified during the year of work and, especially, in the campaign, presented as if they had been the general rule. The discrediting of the Convention was the prelude to the discrediting of the contents of the new Constitution.
I do not know with which of these Rejection anyone who reads these lines identifies, but the truth is that with one or more of them they do. However, all these Rejections came together and acted in pursuit of the same result, even if the different reasons are not shared by all of them or if they are even contradictory to each other. Although in the proposal for a new Constitution there is an answer for each of the doubts or objections behind these Rejections, there came a point where the reasons for defending the text were no longer sufficient. An important part of those decisions were motivated by emotions and perceptions, not reasons.
All these Rejections strengthened each other and weakened the possibility of a constitutional change properly constituent, that is, one that changes the current structure of power relations in society. Not a few voters had enough of a single reason to reject the proposal, even if they agreed with everything else. In some sense, those reasons to reject will still be there and a next attempt at a new Constitution will have to consider it, either to better explain how that future proposal does not represent a threat to those reasons/interests, or to moderate the intensity of some of them, or to avoid some or some of those transformations and postpone them for later or, even if it is difficult to recognize it, to discard them outright.
However, the truth is that the Constitutional Convention failed in its attempt to change these power relations. He wanted to exercise constituent power to collect the popular mandate received at the polls and provide greater tools of change and social justice to the people of Chile, but failed in the attempt. He wanted to dream of a Constitution written in democracy that would change the model and failed. Wanted. Failed.
Someone might say that the people are satisfied with the model and only require some “adjustments”, so they would prefer to move slowly but surely. But maybe not. Perhaps the problem is deeper and is explained by the inability to rely on dialogue as a mechanism to overcome the challenges demanded by life in society and its own inequities. That trust requires tolerating some uncertainty in the process of change and, at the same time, willingly accepting that changes are not imposed vertically by an authority, but are built together, among equals. Perhaps we have, as the people of Chile, an outstanding debt.
However, there is a point that needs to be made in this exercise: the proposed text contains a horizon of undeniable social justice, since it gives an account of a political project that makes it clear that it is possible to think of a different country, from social inclusion, from the universality of our rights, from the deconcentration of power. That a group of representatives of the popular will can agree to reach a text writtento register such important issues as recognizing domestic work, care tasks, the strengthening of local and regional governments, the protection of nature or the guarantee of workers’ rights, among others.
For different reasons – probably the same ones that explain that a constituent moment is and still is necessary – the proposal for a new Constitution failed to counteract the propaganda of the Rejection, which managed to bring together in a single option, different reasons, fears or reactions. Thinking of a different country has an obvious limit that the Convention did not take sufficient account of: the country itself. There are cultural conditions – socially and historically situated – that explain the need for a change that responds to citizenship and that, at the same time, make evident the conditions of possibility for those same changes.
I believe that the proposal for a new Constitution was not maximalist or radical, but it did outline an ambitious political project, which goes beyond those conditions of possibility. And without prejudice to the failure of this attempt, the people of Chile now have a text to which we can resort in the future.
The responsibilities of the Convention
It has been said ad nauseam that the Convention is responsible for not having united the country or for not having managed to bring positions closer after the great social crisis that erupted in October 2019. I personally believe that this rhetoric does not address the constitutive differences of democratic and complex societies, nor how the current constitutional order has contributed to this division of the country. There has been talk of narcissism and lack of leadership, taking the analysis to a guilty terrain more typical of Christian morality than of politics. I believe that there is more interest in promptly identifying “the culprits” to close the chapter, wash certain images and – eventually – open another process, than in pointing out the political limitations that have prevented us – not only now, but over the last decades – from providing us with a democratic constitutional order.
The new Constitution proposed to the country a political project with a future perspective, which was built by democratically elected and elected representatives, on the basis of a social and democratic State based on the rule of law, a parity democracy, the recognition of indigenous peoples and a Republic of solidarity. Perhaps it was necessary to turn around to know the gap between the social reforms that the people have demanded and the changes that those same people are in a position to accept and what could be the way to shorten that gap.
Now, I think there are certain aspects of the constituent process that need to be considered. As first Vice-President of the Convention, I have a political responsibility for what happened in the plebiscite of 4 September, which I do not wish to neglect or circumvent.
The constituent process goes beyond the Convention and does not end with the plebiscite, but in order for this process to continue, in whatever form, it is important to take note of some aspects, so that the experience acquired can be considered to improve the conditions in the exercise of the political power of the people.
For the time being, it took us a long time to create conditions that would allow for a more transversal political dialogue; distrust of institutionalized politics and political parties (towards all, not just the more traditional ones) was the starting point of many conversations. That meant that building trust within the Convention, which allowed collaborative work that could have two-thirds of support in the Plenary, was a slow and onerous exercise; and if something was missing, it was time.
The dialogue between collectives was blocked at the beginning, due to the weaknesses of the representation, given the context of crisis in which the work of the Convention was developed. It wasn’t just a problem with “the right”; it was a structural weakness of the process, which responds to the crisis of legitimacy and confidence in which our representative democracy finds itself.
It is also true that we did not know how to contain the – at times – excessive refoundational spirit, which raised barriers to political dialogue, sometimes with a moralizing tone rather than a properly political one. There were maximalist and refoundational proposals that were presented in the commissions, some accompanied by vociferous speeches. I believe that none of them reached the text that was plebiscite on 4 September, without prejudice to the fact that we have political differences on its content.
Nor could we neutralize the pressure – which bordered on harassment – that the extreme right exerted against those sectors of the right that did want a new Constitution; although not always with the same strength, the cAnnals of dialogue with them were open throughout the process. I trusted that the incorporation of the right in the Bureau would allow to institutionalize a dialogue between collectives and I played with intensity, during July 2021, so that the right had a deputy vice presidency. However, the collaborative spirit of those who joined the Bureau was not reflected in a better willingness to dialogue on the part of his entire sector.
The truth is that in the Convention there were several right-wingers, some of whom do not want and will never want a new Constitution. That right, more radical, completely colonized its caucus, making impossible any form of political agreement that materialized in a vote in the Plenary. On many occasions, the right voted against its own ideas or the proposals it had helped build in committees. There were groups of independents who did not want to dialogue with the right, but that explains part of the problem. There is a lack of a political exercise to identify and assume the limitations that the democratic right has to join the collective construction, which are the same that have been seen in 1989, in the senatorial election of 1997, in the failed presidential candidacy of Piñera in 2005 – to mention a few examples – and that were also manifested in the Convention.
Without prejudice to the results that were shown towards the end, I believe that we failed to sustain the articulations between collectives from the beginning, partly due to lack of political experience, partly due to lack of cunning, pragmatism or even excessive rationality. But we also failed because not all the collectives were in the mood for the constituent talks to prosper. Beyond our political mistakes – tactical and strategic – there were constituents who worked against the process, even before the installation of the Convention. Perhaps they were within their rights, but those of us who are for social changes should have warned in a timely manner of the impact of these actions and not waited for the beginning of the electoral campaign to act. Our response was weak and belated.
Likewise, we should have pondered, with greater coldness and pragmatism, the impact that pressure groups would have on the constituent process and established with them more fluid and permanent channels of dialogue, both institutionalized interest groups and those operating informally. We were naïve to believe that we could push so many changes simultaneously, without a design that would compensate, in some way, for the multiple particular interests that could be affected, even if it was in the general interest; or, without a strategy – political and communicational – that would allow us to have sufficient popular support.
I say nothing new when I say that politics is the pursuit of power; the problem was that we entered that court trusting that good reasons would be enough, when they are not. We entered the campaign several months late and did it wrong.
But let us not get lost: what is in dispute is not how the Convention worked, nor its errors, those of the Government or the command during the campaign, nor the weaknesses or indeterminacies of the proposed constitutional text. What has been in dispute, which was accentuated after the entry plebiscite, is the possibility of pushing a social justice project for Chile, which guarantees rights and ends abuses. The 1980 Constitution represents something quite concrete in that dispute: a conception of society that has generated social unrest in recent decades. The proposal for a new Constitution represents, on the other hand, a different horizon and opposed to that subsidiary model: a social and democratic State based on the rule of law.
Change processes do not stop
As we have seen after the exit plebiscite, the key to all social changes lies with those who have firmly defended the constitutional project currently in force. Now we will enter a loop that will not be easy to overcome, since the discussions on the mechanism for drafting the new Constitution begin again, as in 2009, 2013, 2015-16, 2019.
In constituent matters, the form is the substance: the content of the new Constitution will always be determined by those who participate in its drafting: whether they are parliamentarians in office or representatives of the people elected for that purpose, if citizen participation is opened or closed again, if there is parity, if representatives of the original peoples sit at the table in conditions of equality or not. However, unlike previous discussions on the mechanism, today the conditions of deliberation are different: now there is a proposal for content on the table.
However, this attempt constitutesThis also highlights an aspect of the national public discussion that has accompanied us for decades: how difficult it is to incorporate new reasonable arguments, new reasons, different from those that have been normalized after 42 years of validity of the Chilean constitutional text and, especially, when the political practices that respond to said design have been normalized. The framework of understanding the social, the lens with which we see ourselves, continues to respond to what was once called “the weight of the night” and which today they call “common sense”, whose content is still rather authoritarian and mercantilist. That weight of the night is felt in every political decision with some capacity for change. Leaving that place in order to move forward is a tremendous challenge for the people of Chile, because, to some extent, the neoliberal dimension of that common sense is what generates social unrest in the first place.
Seen in historical perspective, this proposal for a new Constitution represents an important milestone, since it is the first time that several of the social demands, which have shaped the public debate of recent years, are put in writing in an articulated way and with real pretensions of implementation. It was not just another testimonial essay, but a proposal elaborated by representatives of the popular will, in parity and with the original peoples. It takes charge of issues such as solidarity in the health system; human rights debts; the need for decent and adequately funded pensions by workers, employers and the State; free and quality public education for all; the protection of nature; the recognition of indigenous peoples; recognition of the human right to water; parity democracy; a form of government built from majority rule. Here is a political event that marks a milestone in the process of collective construction of that ideology of dignity and social justice, while allowing certain basic contents to be outlined for the discussions that will open in the future.
We have on the table a political project about which we can continue to discuss, whose possible implementation will be present when the law regulating the new national health system is deliberated, for example. A project that allows us to outline a horizon of effective social change and around which we can articulate the millions of wills that concurred in its approval, as well as those who wish to persevere in the cause of social justice.
The political project is there, written in the proposal for a new Constitution. It has been thought out, debated intensely not only in Chile, but also in Latin America and in other countries. There are discussions that this text collects and that are here to stay, which is a step forward. Perhaps it is now up to the democratic forces that believe in social change to identify what to prioritize from that project, how to push it and with what intensity.
Defeats are never final and I believe that we have the responsibility to defend, with strength and conviction, the ideas that were embodied in the proposal for a new Constitution. I humbly invite those who rejected this proposal to review their reasons and identify if there is something in them that will help us to overcome, as a whole, the situation of crisis and social unrest that afflicts us; some of their objections may give rise to meeting points. Likewise, I fraternally invite that 38% not to decline in our convictions and to continue working together and together for a more just and democratic Chile; let us not forget that several of the proposed ideas had a transversal recognition. Today we have a text that shows a roadmap through which we can travel and work together. It is a horizon with which we have the right to dream. None of this has been in vain.
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.
