PRELIMINARY
The selection and registration phase of candidates for constitutional councillors in the new constituent process ended on the 6th of this month. Consequently, a new phase has begun in which both the parties and the candidates themselves will have to make an effort to obtain as many votes as possible for the lists presented to SERVEL. This is the phase of propaganda and the recruitment of the unwary to be carried out by the nation’s ‘political elite’ in this repugnant civic act that began with the signing of the Agreement for Chile on 12 December 2022 and which will last until 17 December of this year; this phase will culminate on 7 May of this year with the elections of constitutional councillors. The installation of the Commission of Experts and the Committee of Advisors on 6 March, in order to fulfil the functions that the ‘elite’ itself has entrusted to them in the corresponding legal text, will not have much significance.
On 17 December, however, there will be another significant event: the vote to approve or reject the work done by the Constitutional Council.
There are, therefore, two major events to which, illegitimately, the nation’s ‘political elite’ has summoned the citizenry: to vote on 7 May for the candidates chosen by the partidocracy and, later, on 17 December of this year, to vote by approving or rejecting the text proposed by the Constitutional Council. It is on these calls that the citizens must pronounce themselves.
LEGITIMACY OF THE CALL
We cannot be sure that the call made by Parliament to the citizens is legitimate; on the contrary, we are certain that it is not only illegitimate but also illegal.
It is illegitimate, because the right to dictate a constitution lies solely and exclusively in the hands of the citizens, who, in order to do so, can convene themselves, or request that the authorities they themselves have elected and to whom they have expressly granted the power to do so.
It is illegal to call a referendum, moreover, because the current constitution does not grant Parliament the power to do so. That power cannot be presumed to have been granted to the ‘political elite’, because of the old legal aphorism that in public law only that for which one is expressly empowered can be done. But what is even more serious is that this Congress – which has no constituent powers whatsoever – grants itself this power through a ‘law’ (Law 21.533 of 17 January 2023) for it to make its will. What is more: the essence of the current constitution is the existence of an exacerbated presidentialism; that presidentialism, on the contrary, has been quite constrained in exercising its functions and has had to cede its space to a de facto parliamentarism that operates against the very spirit of the fundamental charter in force.
Consequently, the conformism that a professor, doctor of many ailments, and candidate for constitutional councillor, will be proposing when he states:
“The legitimacy of the new text will be decided on the basis of its content and its drafting “i. What does this mean?
What does this mean, and what does the professor mean by this? Because it is not effective. On the contrary, it is sophistry. The legitimacy of a constitutional text does not depend on its content but on the consent given to it by the social group to which it belongs; that is the source of its authority. And, consequently, its legitimacy.
We understand, therefore, that the main preoccupation of some analysts is precisely the fear that the delegitimisation of the constituent process may become a reality, as one of them puts it: “In reality, the greatest risk facing the constitutional process is to lose its legitimacy. It is also the objective being pushed by the forces that – from both extremes – want it to fail. It is also the effect produced by the questioning referred to above, whether that is their intention or not. For their latent, and sometimes overt, message is always the same: the process lacks legitimacy “ii. The problem is even more serious: with this resolution, the will of the people has been called into question, replacing it with a veiled way of helping to impose authoritarianism and, in the case of Chileans, to yearn for the need for a dictatorship. As another analyst denounces, “Popular sovereignty is being replaced by an elite sovereignty. Good reasons have always been found for exclusion. The exclusion of women from political rights until recently is very clear in this respect. The Chilean political parties have enshrined something like this: you have to have a degree and experience, but it is the parties themselves who set the bar for experience, so what really matters is to have their approval, to belong to and think like that same elite and to be willing to be dictated to by it “iii .
THE SCENARIOS PRESENTED BY THE NEW CONSTITUENT PROCESS
The first scenario presented by the new constituent process is the call made to the citizens by the Parliament to vote on 7 May. The process is regulated by Law No. 21,533, dated 17 January 2023, which: “… modifies the Political Constitution of the Republic with the aim of establishing a procedure for the elaboration and approval of a new political constitution of the Republic”. Faced with this call, there will be options. The most radical should be two: those who will abide by the call and vote for the lists imposed by the parties, and those who will not, but will still have to go to the polls. One thing is certain: in principle, the vast majority of Chileans will turn out to vote, even if they are against the call to vote, because, being obligatory, a fine will be applied to those who do not turn out, which, if not paid, will lead to imprisonment as a condemnation. So, the strategy of those who do not want to comply with this call cannot, in principle, be abstention. In any case, those who will abide by it will be not only those who signed the Agreement for Chile, but all the militants of the parties and organisations that did so; but, secondly, and in principle (as there are many dissenters in these parties), the militants of the parties that rejected the aforementioned Agreement, that is, the Republican Party PR and the People’s Party PDG, will also abide by this call. And, thirdly, all those who sympathise with the parties and the registered persons; in addition, those who consider voting as a kind of ‘investment’ and those who consider voting not only as a ‘right’ but also as an obligation imposed by the circumstance of living within the national territory (‘patria’).
WHO SIGNED THE AGREEMENT FOR CHILE
- The parties that signed the Agreement for Chile were Renovación Nacional, Unión Demócrata Independiente, Evolución Política, Partido Demócrata Cristiano, Partido Radical de Chile, Partido Liberal de Chile, Partido por la Democracia, Partido Socialista de Chile, Partido Comunista de Chile, Partido Comunes, Federación Regionalista Verde Social, Convergencia Social, Revolución Democrática and Acción Humanista, with a total of 359,356 iv militants, as we pointed out in another of our Works v .
- The organisations that also adhered to the pact but were not yet organised as a party: these were Amarillos por Chile, Demócratas and Unirvi.
PARTIES THAT DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE AGREEMENT
Both the Republican Party PR and the People’s Party PDG did not participate in the Agreement, which does not mean that their leaders are not part of the so-called ‘political elite’ and have come to Parliament only to show off their civic virtues. Parties are institutions that prepare themselves to govern and, consequently, represent social interests, which they realise in the exercise of their parliamentary work. Given that the membership of the Republican Party and the People’s Party amounts to 20,475 and 45,908, respectively, according to SERVEL -both organisations total 66,383-, the final sum of party members who would vote for their candidates on 7 May would reach a total of 425,739. Let us remember that the total number of Chileans of voting age is 14,959,956.
REASONS TO ACT IN AN AUTHORITARIAN MANNER
It is striking, however, that nobody has wanted to explain the reasons that the ‘political elite’ had in mind for resolving the issue of the new constitution in such an authoritarian manner, what was the reason that made a whole group of people agree to act in such a way, or, in other words, what made all this anomalous behaviour possible. In short, what made Parliament get involved in this real madness that has put it at the forefront of international legislative scandals, and which has many analysts wondering if what they were hearing was true or not: “With astonishment we began to receive unofficial news about the supposed structure of the new drafting body, with incredulity we looked at ourselves and saw that the news circulating was real: Commission of experts, predefined content, preventive and repressive mechanisms of control of popular sovereignty, low possibility of representation outside the political parties “vii. But that was and is the case.
POSSIBLE REASONS FOR COMPULSORY VOTING
The reasons that have been given for it to make voting compulsory are related to the need to have the consent of the greatest number of Chileans to the new constitution and thus give greater support to the approved text and, consequently, greater legal stability to the nation. We understand that such a reason can be justified in a dictatorial regime, as happened in 1980, but not in a ‘democratic’ regime, which was precisely the one that eliminated the obligatory nature of the vote.
Our idea is that the issue of the new constitution is closely related to the existence of an ambitious, unscrupulous ‘political elite’, which has persistently tried to remain in force throughout post-dictatorial Chile, in order not to lose the power it holds and its consequent privileges. A patriarchal ‘elite’ that, by the same token, does not even understand what ‘democracy’ is:
“In a patriarchal society the big decisions are taken by the “honourable” (experts, powerful, owners, often also men, white, formally educated). In a democratic society, sovereignty resides with the people “viii.
We do not believe, therefore, that there are altruistic reasons or reasons related to the fate of the nation behind such a dirty determination, but rather the unrestricted defence of personal and corporate interests, which are those that have always dominated the nation’s political scene since the end of the dictatorship.
Such an ‘elite’ is tremendously narcissistic. That is why it determines to place experts to watch over the work of others; it would never think of doing so with itself. Even knowing the manifest ignorance of many of its members. It should not be surprising that a hedonistic elite, such as ours, tends to analyse the results of the plebiscite of 4 September 2022 as an endorsement of its performance. And they want to remove it to their advantage. Then, the logical thing to do is to repeat the previous experience: the compulsory nature of the vote. It is convinced of its own excellence, finds pleasure in its own corporeality and attributes to itself the ‘authority’ to act: thanks to compulsory voting it has won in the past, so let’s make voting compulsory.
ATTITUDE TOWARDS MAY 7
It is difficult to think that, before 7 May, a vast social movement will suddenly emerge to demand, in a new and gigantic social protest, the protagonism of the popular sectors. Difficult, but not impossible. As Francesco Alberoni teaches us, movements are governed by what are known as the ‘laws of chaos’. It can happen and it can also fail to happen.
What we do know is that, unlike those led by Clotario Blest, trade union organisations, since the advent of post-dictatorial democracy, have never played a decisive role in the changes that have taken place in the country. The Central Unitaria de Trabajadores CUT was never present as such in the 2019 protests; nor were others, such as the Central Autónoma de Trabajadores CAT, the Unión Nacional de Trabajadores UNT, the Central de Trabajadores de Chile CTCH, or the recently created Central Clasista de Trabajadoras y Trabajadores CCTT (2018). Neither was the National Association of Fiscal Workers ANEF, nor the Association of Treasury Officials, nor the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, nor any federation (mining, leather and footwear, construction, banking, in short) or union of banks, supermarkets, telephone companies, shops. Only the Central General de Trabajadores CGT, whose president, Manuel Ahumada, was helping to organise solidarity pots to feed those taking part in the marches. The only trade union flag waved at the protests was the red one of an unknown International Workers’ Movement MIT, waved by the lawyer María Rivera, before she was elected as a constituent convention member.
With the trade union centres transformed into bureaucratic bodies, they also became part of the ‘political elite’ and their objectives went no further than defending their private incomes, state aid and the privileges of being a leaderix.
It should come as no surprise that today the people are desolately alone. Abandoned by everyone and everything.
In the present circumstances it is difficult to suggest possible ways to experiment. The logical thing to do would be to call for an analysis of a strategy in which the entire citizenry participates. But it is hard to see how. What is certain is that, if conditions do not change, the alternatives are ostensibly reduced, which is why, personally, I will have no alternative but to go to the ballot box, receive my vote, mark my preference for all the candidates in order to annul it, and write ‘A/C’ on it in big letters. By carrying out this act, I will be making a clear statement of my repudiation of the call, I will disavow the moral authority of the caller to force me to attend his call and I will state my position on the matter in a precise manner before the Electoral Service. But, at the same time, it will be my last and only homage to that great fighter who was Gustavo Ruz Zañartu, whose greatest merit was to dream of the creation of a Constituent Assembly that could give Chile its fundamental charter. Because it may well be that the time has come to do so.
i Araneda, Fernanda: “Aldo Valle sobre proceso constituyente: ‘La legitimidad del texto se va a decidir en razón del contenido'”, Radio Universidad de Chile, 08 February 2023.
ii Brunner, José Joaquín: “La lucha por la legitimidad del proceso constitucional”, ‘El Líbero’, 15 February 2023.
iii Galindo, Oscar and Vergara, Jorge Iván: “Una nueva constitución en once pasos o el laberinto constituyente”, ‘El Ciudadano’, 09 February 2023.
iv Data taken from SERVEL, available on INTERNET. The organisation ‘Acción Humanista’ likewise has no data in the public body.
v See Manuel Acuña: “Aspectos notables en la ‘escena política’ de la nación”, published in various INERNET media.
vi Given that they are not parties, SERVEL has no information on the militancy of such structures.
vii Sanhueza, Juan Pablo and Espinoza, Felipe: “¿Y el pueblo dónde está?”, Radio Universidad de Chile RUCH, 03 February 2023.
viii Correa Salinas, Juan Pablo: “Obediencia patriarcal o cooperación democrática?”, ‘El Desconcierto’, 12 February 2023.
ix This was no accident. It obeyed a state policy. It was necessary to put an end to strikes and protests by co-opting the leadership of trade unions, federations, confederations and centrals as well as associations and corporations. It coincided with the end of the ‘public service’ and the ‘public charge’. The practice of providing services to the state, without demanding payment, was altered. The rents of directors of companies and state services spread like a malignant plague; even those who served as directors of human rights bodies began to receive payments. It seems unnecessary to recall the ‘regidores’ and the difference between them and today’s ‘councillors’.
