Women’s rights are being rolled back; the possibility of improving the quality of life in the poorest municipalities is being rejected when contributions are taken away from the municipal common fund; the privatisation of health, welfare and education is being consolidated. An attempt is made to close the doors to new political forces being able to enter Parliament by setting an unattainable threshold for any new party; and the parity so necessary for women to have equal participation and presence in legislative bodies is left out. The whole structure of the text is regressive and therefore the only real possibility of fixing this is with a diametrically different proposal.

We got off to a bad start

The result of the plebiscite of 4 September, which rejected the original constitutional text by 62%, has been understood as a questioning of the right of the people to participate in the new constitutional process. Consequently, the original power, which lies with the people, has been replaced by Parliament, which set limits (“borders”) to the new process, elected an Expert Commission to draft a proposal, agreed on the existence of a Technical Committee on Admissibility – a sort of arbitration body to supervise compliance with the agreed constitutional bases – and finally agreed on the election of 50 citizens to form a Constitutional Council, in the same way as the senators.

Thus, the new Constitutional process begins with serious restrictions on the democratic authority of the people to freely draft the text of the New Constitution. The Constituent Power has been replaced by the Constituted Power.

…And we end up worse

After some months of work the Constitutional Council elaborated a text that radically modifies the proposal of the “experts”. In effect, the amendments of the so-called Republican Party (PR), with the support of Chile Vamos, represent a brutal step backwards in the civilisational advances that, after long struggles, the Chilean people have achieved. The amendments that have been drafted not only deviate from the limits (“edges”) set by Parliament, but also reject almost in their entirety the text drafted by the Expert Commission.

In fact, on the institutional political level, the PR will be proposing to reduce the number of parliamentarians from 155 to 132 seats, without further justification; it will also be proposing the elimination of the parity of departure, together with the suppression of the popular initiative to repeal laws, the upward of the quorum to 2/3 for constitutional reforms and the maintenance of the preventive control of the Constitutional Court. It is the defence of patriarchy and, at the same time, the installation of a wall against citizens who wish to defend their rights and will be proposing law initiatives.

Moreover, the “republicans” argue that social security must guarantee the freedom to choose the administrator, whether private or public. This is a protection for the AFPs; in health, they reinstate the freedom of choice clause so that the compulsory contribution is administered by private entities; and, they reject abortion under any conditions. In education, they make explicit that parents have the right to choose their children’s education. They add that strikes in education services should be prohibited. This is the rejection of a social state of rights and the continuation of inefficient and corrupt subsidiarity.

On the trade union level, they will be proposing to limit the right to strike and, by the way, they exclude the public sector from this right, as it is present in the current constitution. This is an attempt to further strengthen corporate power and to keep workers without bargaining power.

In the international ambit, they will be proposing that the Constitution is above international treaties and, consequently, it is not possible to delegate sovereignty, which is proper to any treaty. This is a serious breach of international law, especially in human rights.

Furthermore, the “republicans” incorporate two special chapters to be included in the Constitution. One for the Armed Forces and the other on Security. This is an attempt to make the armed forces independent of civilian power, which is unacceptable in a democratic regime.

Finally, there are the populist proposals, with which they seek to please public opinion, which, in reality, are more the stuff of a government programme: exemption from contributions for the first home, conscientious objection, the right to life and the expulsion of illegal immigrants.

Luis Silva, leader of his group and a member of Opus Dei, had already warned us of the intransigent path that his political party would follow. In an interview with Diario Financiero, he stated the following: “…when they talk to us now, about the need to reach agreements, why on earth, being the majority, do we have to reach agreements with the minority? Let them earn it, it is their problem, not ours… I don’t want to pass the buck, but here the openness to reach an agreement belongs to those who are in the minority”. Well partisan the gentleman, as we are used to saying nowadays. And of transversality, nothing.

By the way, the “republican” proposals are completely unacceptable. However, Chile Vamos has already endorsed a large part of them, even though its members were part of the drafting of the text of the Commission of Experts. It seems that in this area the pact between the two rightists is beginning to become a reality, under the hegemony of the PR.

Chilean politicians, of different orientations, often argue that “The problems of democracy are solved with more democracy”. However, the Parliament turned its back on this apothegm when it decided to marginalise the people in order to promote a constituent process controlled by the political elite.

The Constitutional proposal promoted by the PR, and supported by Chile Vamos, is a major economic, political, social and cultural step backwards, which the left and sectors of the democratic centre cannot accept.

Fernando Atria has been clear in maintaining that it is a Constitution that in reality, what it contains is the programme of the Republican Party because: “It is a Constitution that diminishes the capacity of the political system to represent the number of deputies with an adequate rule. It mentions the words “social state”, but denies it. For the rest, Republicans have always said they don’t believe in it. And that manifests itself in the fact that this proposal denies social rights and understands them as market protections.” (EMOL, 06-10-20-23).

We are then faced with a serious problem, as it is the whole design that is wrong and far removed from the aspirations of citizens. And, as Tomas Hirsch says it well: “The no end structure that was presented is a structure that strengthens and deepens the neoliberal model that has prevailed in our country for years, and that strengthens a conception of society that is conservative” (El Siglo, 06-10-20-2023).

In effect, women’s rights are being rolled back; the possibility of improving the quality of life in the poorest municipalities is being rejected when contributions are taken away from the municipal common fund; the privatisation of health, welfare and education is being consolidated. An attempt is made to close the doors to new political forces being able to enter Parliament by setting an unattainable threshold for any new party; and the parity so necessary for women to have equal participation and presence in legislative bodies is left out.

The whole structure of the text is regressive and therefore, the only real possibility to fix this is with a diametrically different proposal. I believe, however, that in the current political situation, with the hegemony of the “republicans” over Chile Vamos, a rectification that brings the document closer to the original proposal of the Expert Commission is not possible.

In the coming months, citizens will have to be duly informed that a Pinochettist Constitution 2.0 is in gestation, which will mean the loss of fundamental rights of the people. And, therefore, they will have no choice but to vote Against.