“This is democracy,” the constituent Benito Baranda repeated to us, raising his arms, to the members of the Non-Neutral Independents collective, every time we lost a vote in committees or plenary sessions of the Constitutional Convention. There were many occasions when this happened, it hurt us, we were convinced that our ideas were good. But, “that’s what democracy is like.”
These days it is one month since the crushing defeat of the Apruebo in the plebiscite. Benito Baranda’s words have become a kind of mantra that I repeat daily. However, it is not enough for me to assume what happened in all its dimension.
Coincidentally, this date coincides with the Day of Forgiveness of the Jews, a people to which I belong. Tradition points out that it is not enough to repent and fast for a whole day, that what is truly significant is to be able to ask forgiveness from those we have offended or harmed. Will I have to do it with those who elected me as a constituent because they have failed to give the country the new Constitution they expected?
A month after the plebiscite, it seems that the Convention and its proposal have vanished. Moreover, what was believed to be immovable advances – gender parity, decentralization or citizen participation – no longer retain such certainty.
The reasons for the resounding defeat, the disqualification of the conventional and the ideas for the constitutional future are as broad as the number of analysts. It will be years of study and multiple theories will emerge about what happened.
After a month of reflection, I would like to begin by vindicating the Convention. I have no doubt that more than a hundred constituents worked intensely and rigorously during the year that the process lasted. There were more hours a day, and more complexity and rigor than in any other work we have done. All this, together with numerous top-level experts who committed and stayed up late at the same time as us. The genius of a commission of specialists, which circulates today as a key factor in dealing with a new text, is far from being a novelty. The experts are not neutral, and those who were at the Convention – from different political currents and with different points of view – debated with passion to contribute to decision-making.
The proposal was not a bodrio, as some dared to describe it. There are many Chilean and foreign specialists who praised him. It was a text, they said, that was fully installed in the twenty-first century assuming not only the historical problems but the issues of today’s society, from generic sex diversity to the rights of nature. Issues that will surely return to the table sooner rather than later.
Does all of this mean we did it right? No way. The beating of the exit plebiscite leaves no room for indulgence. Therefore, to those who voted for us and entrusted us with this task, I ask you to forgive us for having been unable to draw up a Constitution that would summon the majority.
It was insisted that – if adopted – the text could be improved and rectified in some unclear areas. However, I do not believe that our faults have been in specific details or chapters of the text.
The big mistake was to ignore the relevance of certain fundamental subjects. The most important: to have completely excluded the right. A behavior not only wrong but undemocratic. There were constituents of Chile Vamos who arrived ready for dialogue, but were trapped between those from the left who refused to talk to them because of their closeness to the dictatorship, and a hard and implacable right that sought failure from the beginning and pressured them mercilessly until they gave in. By the way, the greatest responsibility lies with those of us who were looking for a new Constitution. How different the plebiscite campaign would have been with a sector of the right working for the Approve! The debate would have focused on the democratic advances of the proposal and not on the irritating discussion around fake news. What was described as nonsense as plurinationality would have sounded reasonable. Exorbitant lies, such as the impossibility of inheriting social housing or the expropriation of pension funds, would have had a barrier of containment. We were able to do it and we didn’t. Sorry for that.
We do not measure the anger and fear of many to see the Chileanness blurred. We thought it was just that share of racism, which embarrasses us, or simple ignorance, which certainly exists, but we did not consider that it was an emocmajority ion. We did not know how to value that feeling that unites us, whether we are descendants of native peoples, Europeans or any other ancestor. That Chileanness that makes us cry in front of the football team or feel that hallulla is the best bread in the world. We were unable to assume our historical and cultural roots in their true depth. Sorry for that.
Nor did we manage to adequately confront the strategy of Rejection. A campaign that, in my opinion, had three fundamental actors. In the first place, the right in a solid bloc, hiding its leaders and spending millionaire resources in the media and social networks (more than two billion pesos, according to Servel data), to distribute lies that pointed to the hearts of those who could be seduced. Secondly, a diffuse political centre in which good intentions, diverse fears, from anti-communism to the eventual economic debacle, and personal interests, which include the maintenance of a status quo that accommodates them. Finally, the disinterest in the profound changes of a relevant sector of the left that remained coldly on the sidelines of the mobilization for the Apruebo.
The constitutional proposal was not revolutionary, but it did contain far-reaching political reforms. There were many center-left political leaders and parliamentarians who did not tolerate the elimination of the Senate (however discredited it may be) and its replacement by a different body. Nor were they willing to accept a regionalization with real local powers, even if it was gradual and progressive. In this area, although it was certainly perfectible, I do not think that forgiveness should be asked. Because the political and social crisis has not been overcome, and the country continues to demand substantive changes.
A month after the plebiscite, the initial euphoria of those who voted Rejection is blurring. Some find that the reasons for their vote did not fit the contents of the proposal, such as those seeking to end crime or censure central or municipal government authorities. Others realize that they focused their attention on disruptive or histrionic conventions instead of text. Also those who voted to reject the “usual” politicians, and remain equally frustrated. Many because they see the promises of reform that the opposition preached go away. Uncertainty remains intact and hope plummets.
The triumph of the Apruebo proposed a clear path, with graduality and the possibility of effective corrections with citizen participation.
Today we have none of this. We have regressed to an elitist discussion locked in the political world, as far removed from the citizenry as before the social outbreak, which was not seen coming. The agreement that was promoted as “reject to reform” is increasingly complex with the appearance of the “edges” that a new Constitution should have.
They are borders, which would be more accurate to call limits or insurmountable borders, reminiscent of the “protected democracy” of the Constitution of 80, created so that nothing would change too much if the right did not govern. Thus, it will be difficult to carry out reforms that truly modify the status quo.
These limits will prevent an assembly that represents citizens with the diversity that the Convention did. Because the elite did not like what put on the table that too plural choir. The imposed quorum of 2/3 was more than met, but it was not enough. Now, then, the majaderos edges arise. It will no longer matter the number of votes but to ensure that an edge that the constituted powers consider indispensable to maintain the established order is not exceeded.
In less than 30 days, new parties are organized with faces that were already mature at the end of the dictatorship in 1990. The social and democratic rule of law seems to have fallen into oblivion, as does the obligation to guarantee social rights. In the Finance Committee of the House, the idea of advancing in a tax reform, indispensable to make them a reality, was approved with the vote against the entire opposition.
The need for a new Constitution remains intact. The great challenge is that it manages to connect with the desires of change of the citizenship and allows a full democracy, without protections or edges that guard a certain ideology.
As the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Fridjog Nansen, said: “The difficult thing is what takes a certain time; the impossible is what takes a little longer.”
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.
