2023-12-17 05:01:00
In October 2022, Chilean citizens voted massively for the “Rejection” of the constitutional proposal arising from a Constituent Convention composed of a majority of the left, which opted for a radical change with respect to the Magna Carta approved in 1980, during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. Today, citizens will go to the polls again to vote in a second process that will define the fate of the Constitution of the neighboring country, in a context of political disaffection, increased polarization of political identities, a growing shift towards right-wing party options and the appropriation of a more security and economically regressive agenda of concerns.
The fatigue of the Chilean population, which reached its peak in the so-called social outbreak of October 2019, was caused by a demand for greater access to rights – in housing and territorial, pension, educational, health and racial matters, among others – which was recovered during the 2021/2022 Constituent Convention, rejected in last year’s exit plebiscite. The spirit of this year’s Constitution, on the other hand, has the imprint of a Republican Party with a majority in the Constitutional Council.
Interviewed by Página/12, Carlos del Valle and Mauro Salazar, academics from the Universidad de la Frontera in southern Chile, explain the differences between both norms: the letter of the Constitution that is being held today, December 17, means “abandoning the progressive conception of common good.” Specifically, this year’s proposal replaces the protection of nature and the active role of the State in access to rights with issues such as citizen security and the vindication of private property, which are among the main concerns of Chilean citizens.
-What are the similarities and differences between the spirit of the Constitution that was not approved in October 2022 and the Constitution that is being voted on today?
-Carlos del Valle: In the proposed Constitution for the year 2022, concepts associated with a more radical progressivism appeared. For example, ecology and the State were strongly present. And, furthermore, the protection of nature (water, forests) as well as pensions, health and education were separated from the purely private sphere. Which was significant because private property is fundamental in the current constitution in use, which was approved in the year 80, during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. In fact, there was a very strong reaction from the large companies associated with pensions and health on that occasion. In the spirit of the current Constitution, many of the elements of the current Magna Carta are maintained.
-Mauro Salazar: The Constitution of 2022, which was rejected, had the epic of the October 2019 revolt and the vindication of the State. In this context, we have a segment of the right in the process of de-Pinochetization and that, in principle, was willing to move from a passive subsidiarity – whose mentor is Jaime Guzmán – of the State to a more active one in matters of health, pensions and education.
-And the current constitution?
-MS: The new oligarchic pact has a dimension that is very refractory to the roles of the State in Chile, in matters of pensions and education, as well as other social rights. Of course, there will be a State in matters of security, which was growing as a social concern.
-After the victory of the October 2022 rejection by just over 60% of the votes, do you think there was some type of impact on the party system or has it returned to the initial scenario?
-MS: In the context of the social outbreak, the party system in Chile was a devalued category; The term “party,” moreover, was a flawed notion. In the current process, the fracture between the hegemony of political parties and daily life became more acute. This disjunction worsened and, to modify this situation, reconnecting citizen subjectivity and the parties will be an infinite task.
-Some surveys seem to indicate a process that goes from rejection of the previous Constitution to a clear approach to the option of “approval” of this constitutional version. Why do you think this change occurs?
-QoL: It is possible to mention two issues in this regard. On the one hand, a discourse associated with issues such as “security” is reinstated, which generates a lot of social unrest and is reinforced in the Constitution. On the other hand, the constitutional process was accompanied by a growing polarization of society in its political identities. The preference for the plebiscite is linked to a mix of party identities. Today we see a growing preference for right-wing spaces. Within the right, the most extreme sides have social support of 30%, while the parties of the most classic right, the UDI and Renovación Nacional, appear with 13% closeness to the people. Finally, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party have a seventeen percent affinity.
-In the framework of this trend towards polarization and a greater preference for right-wing options, what are the new antagonisms that you observe both in the political elite and in society in Chile?
-MS: Ours is an institutionalist social structure that, although it finds its legitimacy (order) in the disbandments of the social revolt of 2019, at the same time produces conservative regression. The Concertación has located itself in a critical and neutral point, but it was not able to de-Pinochetize Chilean society.
-An interesting aspect of the ’22 Constitution was that of private property, which included the territorial problems of indigenous communities, such as the housing issue. What changes do you observe regarding the indigenous issue in the new letter of the Constitution that is being held today?
-CdV: There is a regression between the ’22 proposal and the current one. Last year’s rejection could be understood from a racist perspective. Some elements of the rejection of the supposed privileges of the indigenous world. Among those who opted for rejection, there was tension regarding what was perceived as a massive recovery of territories for indigenous people that resulted in the loss of territories for non-indigenous people. Regarding the territorial problem, the specific elements of expropriation of ancestral territories were left unspecified in last year’s Constitution. These legislative gaps were filled with a racist media discourse that resonated with the population.
-Do you think that the rejection was concentrated in the fear around indigenous communities and territorial recovery?
-CdV: If analyzed from a historical perspective, the current constitutional proposal shows a return even to the Constitution of 1925, a time when the indigenous was almost invisible. While last year there was a significant visibility of the indigenous issue (the term was mentioned more than 60 times), today it is confined to a more cultural and depoliticized dimension, with just three mentions.
-Another agenda item that is reinstated with the outbreak of ’19 and, more clearly, in the 2021/2022 Constituent Convention, is access to education. This problem is also redefined in the current Constitution. What were the most eloquent changes?
-QoL: There are two major axes of comparison. The first revolves around the vindication of the public and the private. While last year’s proposal defined education as a common good, the current one insists more on the individual right to education. In any case, the individual decision of people to educate themselves is then endorsed by the decision of where to do it.
-What forms of expression did what you have called “new digital insurgencies” take?
-MS: With that term I was referring to the digitalization process in Chile in the context of the revolt and the deficit of political narrative. At that time we witnessed an insurrectional mosaic of demands (water, pensions, identity, owning a home) coming from different towns. Peoples always in plural. In that context we did not have the production of speeches that articulate the antagonisms. What happens today, whether the plebiscite is defined by a narrow margin or if the liquid majorities are activated in Chile, in no case will the crack that was activated with the outbreak of October 2019 be resolved. The left lacks a transformative horizon and only manages In short, this Sunday the 17th will be the consummation of “constitutional neoliberalism.”
#pact #refractory #roles #State #Today #Constitution #conservative #matrix #held #Chile