The Constitutional reform to be voted on in Chile on September 4 reached a international relief as perhaps it was not foreseen in the prolegomena of the call for the constitutional convention, still during the conflictive days of the decadent government of Sebastian Pinera.
In this sense, the development of a new legal and regulatory framework to replace the 1980 Constitution as a transparent expression of the Pinochet dictatorship; the new proposals emanating from social movements and political parties that are also innovative in a changing political scenario and, above all, the set of measures that, at least from a symbolic point of view, are committed to bend neoliberalism Precisely in the country where this model was first applied, they are elements that have generated special attention not only in Chile and Latin America.
Thus, for a few months, several of the publications with the largest international circulation echoed the debates and conflicts that are currently tearing Chilean politics apart. mass media and opinion generation Time y Newsweek, or magazines of academic profile such as Foreign Policyhave published different analyzes of the new constitutional proposal, generally with a negative character.
Of course, this critical vision is not naive and reveals the limits that a reform of these characteristics can assume for the central countries, with increasingly complex economies, although without the level of internal conflict or the social disparity typical of the Latin American reality.
A factor that undoubtedly stands out within the overall campaign against the approval of the Chilean constitutional reform, was the one elaborated from the British magazine The Economist, Since its foundation, nearly 180 years ago, one of the most important spokesmen for the liberal creed and, therefore, one of the main promoters of free enterprise and the free market in Great Britain, but also anywhere in the world. world.
With this background, it is clear that any article or editorial published by this widely distributed medium exceeds the simple opinion of a journalist or specialist. Simple texts of opinion are thus automatically transformed into a value judgment around ideological premises supported by a international establishmenthe staunch defender of the free market, but at the same time, refractory to any initiative that calls into question (or barely contradicts) the central axes of the market and the liberal system.
Thus, on March 19, the text entitled “Chile’s new president won from the left. Can he govern like that?” (“The new president of Chile won from the left. Can he govern like this?”). There, although they recognize the specific advantages of the new government of Gabriel BoricAt the same time, the fear was highlighted that the constitutional text that was being drafted would lead to “an impracticable, utopian, and anti-capitalist document.”
Once their worst fears were corroborated, the historic London media published another editorial on July 6 with the title “Voters Should Reject Chile’s New Draft Constitution.”
In said article, not only is the current constitutional proposal defenestrated, but at the same time the Magna Carta approved in 1980, in the midst of a military dictatorship, is vindicated, since, although it is not “perfect”, on the other hand, it is “a model of clarity” that has allowed the different leaders to “govern” from Pinochet onwards.
Without delving into a set of falsehoods (for example, in relation to the nationalization of natural resources or property rights over water in the case of farmers and landowners), the article is built from a nostalgic look at the heritage of the Pinochet dictatorship, which a good part of Chilean society is seeking to leave in the past.
For The Economist, the new Constitution, “is absurdly long, with 388 articles”, whose review is complex due to “imprecise language” that, in addition, can result in a “confusing mess” for the reader. And from an ideological point of view, he does not hesitate to state that “it is also fiscally irresponsible and sometimes twisty.”
With everything, The Economist (liberal orientation after all) does not fail to recognize the important social, cultural and economic advances aimed at those sectors of the population that have suffered the most from the neoliberal onslaught of recent years. In this sense, one of the points in favor is the defense of the identity and education in their own language of the indigenous communitieshistorically relegated in Chilean society.
However, the emphasis of the editorial is clear when it points out that the application of the new Magna Carta will affect the national business community, restricting their freedom of action, and thus influencing the country’s economic growth.
Similarly, the proposal in favor of adequate working conditions based on union activity and, even more, the rejection of the different forms of “job insecurity” so common in this late and peripheral capitalism, deserve critical comments due to their negative influence on those sectors that supposedly are the most dynamic in the Chilean economy.
However, and “as a picture is worth a thousand words”, the analysis of The Economist on the proposal of the Chilean constitutional reform can be synthesized from the illustration that accompanies the article in question. There the Chilean Constitution (current or future) is simply identified with a roll of toilet paper from the end of which hangs a badge that certifies its status as an official document…
Against the wear of right and from the opposition in Chile, once again, the United Kingdom establishment has come out in its support, precisely to make it clear that the alliance that in the past supported the governments of Augusto Pinochet in Santiago and Margaret Thatcher in London , is still in force today. Even more so, when it comes to building a common front in the face of the advance of innovative proposals and superior formulas.