The End of a Historical Cycle in Chile
By Andres Kogan Valderrama
HAVANA TIMES – What was expected in Chile has happened; for the second consecutive time, a constitutional proposal has been rejected. This is not only something quite unprecedented on a global level but also marks the conclusion of a process that aimed to provide a democratic and institutional solution to a crisis in the prevailing political and economic system, which resulted in a massive social uprising in October 2019.
While the outcome may be seen as positive and a relief, as it discredits and hinders the rise of the far right and the figure of JoseAntonio Kast, it leaves us in a scenario of great frustration and political disappointment. This compels us to once again question the reasons for the failure of the constitutional process, which was officially initiated on November 15, 2019, through the so-called Agreement for Peace and a New Constitution.”
“The agreement, which was the political class’s response to the massive mobilizations and demands from various sectors, marked the beginning of a political process in Chile like never before. It filled many with hope of finally having a democratic constitution that would guarantee universal rights and be able to encompass the country in all its diversity.
On a personal level, I was one of those who viewed the 2019 agreement with some skepticism, as it did not include various social sectors in the discussion and did not lay the groundwork for a Constituent Assembly. However, I eventually saw it as an immense opportunity to build a different country, one that would address a political history of elitism and authoritarianism, where constitutions were tailored to those who control political and economic power, starting from 1833 onwards.
Therefore, the immense victory in the initial plebiscite of 2020 and the formation of the Constituent Convention in 2021, composed of a vast and diverse group of individuals outside of political parties, promised a citizen-led body that resembled Chile much more. This suggested a democratization of democracy and the beginning of a new era in the country.
However, the composition of that first Constituent Convention left the traditional right greatly diminished and without the ability to veto norms. This led this sector to align with the far-right and launch an extensive communication campaign from the outset, both in concentrated traditional media and digitally. The campaign aimed to discredit the work of the constituents through lies, misinformation, and the installation of the idea that the new proposal was a farce.
Subsequently, there was a catastrophic defeat on September 4, 2022, followed by a new agreement between political parties for drafting a new constitution. However, this time it was more exclusionary and desperate to salvage something without any basis. This ultimately led to the triumph of the far right and the Republican Party in the new Constitutional Council, drafting a constitution tailored to them, which was ultimately rejected on Sunday, December 17.
Having said all this, those of us who hoped for something better, cannot ignore our own political responsibility in this historical cycle’s end in Chile. While there was an anti-democratic machinery behind the traditional right and the far right, our own mistakes during this period also played a role.
When I speak of political responsibility, I don’t mean what certain leftwing sectors claim, attributing the 2022 rejection to drafting an overly extreme and identity-focused constitution. Instead, I refer to our own inability to sustain the process firmly and consistently.
Starting with the government of Gabriel Boric, it seems that they failed to recognize that the best way to support the first constitutional process was by implementing strong universal economic policies and direct resource delivery to families. This would have provided certainty to people facing the disastrous effects of the pandemic, which saw the constitutional process as distant and disconnected from their basic needs.
In other words, the government maintained economic policies within a fiscal responsibility framework. While this might be understandable in another context, it was not suitable in a constitutional scenario, as seen in their refusal to allow a new withdrawal of funds from the pension system (AFP). This created increasing distance from the population and greater discontent.
Similarly, the government did not recognize the importance of the role of the information media during this period, failing to prioritize the discussion of media decentralization and the need to strengthen public channels, such as TVN, to dispute the agenda and establish a broad narrative.
Regarding the responsibility of the initial Constituent Convention, it succumbed to excessive and completely encapsulated triumphalism. Some members did not grasp the weight of the historical moment we were experiencing as a country, getting involved in unnecessary controversies. While the case of Rodrigo Rojas Vade was the most emblematic and serious, many foolish mistakes were made due to overconfidence.
Left-wing political parties were unable to lead the process coherently and disciplined, as evidenced when they signed a declaration seeking to reform the new constitution if approved. This only undermined its content, presenting a more “moderate” and “centrist” view, yielding to the right’s discourse that it was a flawed text.
On the other hand, social movements fell into anti-political party logics, evident in the campaign and television broadcasts, as well as in certain denunciations of those who did not agree with certain demands. They lacked a strategic approach via dialogue, which was essential for Chile at such a crucial moment, requiring complete coordination among all transformative forces.
Finally, many of us who were enthusiastically campaigning in the streets did not realize the importance of all these factors in time. We mistakenly believed in an immense politicization of Chilean society, which crumbled with mandatory voting, revealing a neoliberal, racist, and sexist subjectivity that we naively and uncritically thought was fading away.
In conclusion, we did not rise to the occasion of this historical moment in Chile, which sadly concludes, maintaining the existing order and allowing conservative forces to continue imposing their dominance on the country. This period will be remembered in the future as the constituent process that could not be.”