Chile decided to reject, for the second time, a proposal that sought to replace its current Constitution.
With more than 55% support, the “against” option prevailed over the “for” option, which achieved 44% support in the plebiscite held this Sunday, December 17.
The South American country has spent the last 4 years trying to change its Magna Carta, since it was presented as an alternative to resolve the strong tensions of the social outbreak that began in October 2019.
The process was closely followed by the world, as a possible example of hope on how to address social grievances through democratic mechanisms.
But the first attempt failed in September 2022, when a 62% voted “rejection” to a proposal that was described by some as “refoundational.”
A year and three months later, Chileans once again said no to a document that, for many, was more conservative than the current Constitution, inherited from the Augusto Pinochet regime (but reformed several times in democracy).
The result of the elections means a defeat for the extreme right led by the former presidential candidate José Antonio Kastwho commanded this second proposal.
And a bitter victory for the mostly left-wing sectors that were behind the “against” option but that, for the second time, They lost their historic desire to change the current Constitution.
How do you explain that Chile has stumbled twice in this process despite the fact that initially a 80% of Chileans did you vote in favor of replacing your current Magna Carta?
Here we explain.
1. Criticisms of the contents of the proposal and the advice
According to the analysts consulted by BBC Mundo, one of the reasons that explains the triumph of the “against” is that the main contents of the proposal did not meet transversal agreement.
Critics of the document called it “deeply neoliberal” and they affirmed that it did not respond to the main demands that emerged strongly in the massive demonstrations in 2019, such as reforms to the health, education and pension systems.
The proposal privileged a mixed system in the provision of these services. In health, he said that the law should establish a universal health plan, which could be offered by state and private institutions.
Something similar was raised in the case of pensions, where the State had to guarantee access to basic and universal benefits that could be granted through “public or private institutions”.
And in education, the “teaching freedom” and the preferential right of parents over the education of their children.
According to its critics, with the above the text did not ensure greater participation and involvement of the State in the provision of these services, but rather the opposite: it consolidated the model of the “Subsidiary State” that currently exists and that, for many, is responsible for structural inequality in the country.
Articles such as the one that said “The law protects the life of the unborn” or the one who established the “conscientious objection” Well, for some, women’s rights could be endangered, such as the three-cause abortion law that has been in force in Chile since 2017, or access to the morning-after pill.
Even leaders from the right, like the mayor Evelyn Mattheiwhich supported the “for” option, questioned the text, pointing out that it looked more like a “government program” by former presidential candidate José Antonio Kast.
“There were norms that ideologically led the left to align against a proposal that was obviously loaded to the right,” he explains to BBC Mundo. Isabel Castilloresearcher at the Center for Conflict and Social Cohesion Studies (COES).
“In some sectors there was the notion that the content was exaggerated,” he adds. Javier SajuriaChilean political scientist and professor at Queen Mary University of London.
The work of the council Nor was it well evaluated by citizens.
According to a survey by the Center for Public Studies (CEP), carried out in July, in the middle of the process, almost a 40% of people considered that they did it “badly or very badly” and only 19% considered that they did it “well or very well.”
“We are facing a rather anomalous event, where both attempts to change the Constitution failed. both the mechanism and the content“Octavio Avendaño, doctor in political science and academic at the University of Chile, tells BBC Mundo.
2. Constitutional “ennui” and other priorities
Chile is tired of the constitutional debate and practically all opinion studies show it.
Just one month before the election, the Cadem survey (one of the most reputable in the country) showed that a third of voters (32%) were “a little or not at all” interested in the process.
There is talk of constitutional “fatigue” or “ennui” after these four years of efforts to change the Magna Carta.
Meanwhile, five elections have passed (between plebiscites and elections to elect the councilors in charge of writing the proposals) and the result is two failed attempts.
“We have been dragging out this process for too long.”, wasting time in elections and with an inept political class incapable of reaching an agreement,” Gabriela, a Chilean who voted against this Sunday, tells BBC Mundo.
For Octavio Avendaño, one of the reasons for this lack of interest has to do with the failure of the first attempt in which Chileans had placed their hopes.
“The process suffered enormous discredit and that generated a harmful effect,” he says.
Today, experts say, constitutional change is no longer even seen as a tool to get out of the crisis.
“There is disappointment and there is little faith that the current elites may be able to solve the problem,” Javier Sajuria tells BBC Mundo.
Furthermore, according to several researchers, Chileans’ priorities changed.
This is also demonstrated by opinion studies, where the security, crime and drug trafficking They are the first concern of Chileans, followed by the economy.
And the South American country is going through one of the worst security crises in its recent history.
The fear of suffering a crime reached its highest historical record two months ago, with more than 30% of people who declared they had that fear, according to the Paz Ciudadana foundation.
For Isabel Castillo, “there was a significant percentage of people who simply did not want a new constitutional process because it diverts the political discussion from issues that, for them, are urgent.”
3. “Punishment” to the political class
Another reason that explains the failure of this process is that it failed to unite the different political sectors of the country.
The same thing happened with the first attempt, when centrist and right-wing groups insisted that they had been marginalized. This time, it was the mostly left-wing sectors that said they felt excluded.
According to analysts, this led a high percentage of voters to mark the “against” option as a “punishment vote” towards the Chilean political class.
“A scenario where everyone had agreed, defending the same proposal, would obviously have been different. This was a punishment for the lack of transversality,” says Isabel Castillo.
Along these lines, this Sunday, after knowing the results, the president of the socialist party, Paulina Vodanovicindicated that they must be able to reflect on the reasons why the “long-awaited unity” was not achieved.
“The country lost the opportunity to have made a Constitution in democracy,” he added.
Furthermore, it should be considered that in Chile – and much of the world – approval of politicians has been decreasing considerably in recent years.
Today, in fact, parties and parliament are the institutions with the highest percentage of “perception of corruption,” according to opinion polls.
And in this constitutional process, unlike the previous one, political parties played a leading role.
Thus, analysts agree that a high percentage of the “against” vote has to do with a repudiation of the ruling class.
“It is the consequence of an anti-political discourse that has been taking root in Chile,” says Avendaño.
“It is very similar to the phenomenon that caught on in Argentina with Javier Milei and the political caste that is perceived as a privileged class and that benefits from State resources,” he adds.
What will happen now?
After knowing the results of the plebiscite, the president Gabriel Boric He pointed out that during his term (which has two years left) a new constitutional process will not be carried out.
“The emergencies are different,” he said.
“The constituent process was intended to bring hope and finally has generated frustration and even boredom in a relevant part of the citizenry and we cannot ignore that,” he added.
The same has been argued by other leaders of the ruling party who have stated that Chile should focus on trying to solve other problems that afflict citizens, such as public safety.
Furthermore, there is a conviction that, in economic terms, the best thing is to close the discussion.
When casting his vote this Sunday, the Minister of Finance, Mario Marcel, He said that opening another process “generates uncertainty for citizens in general and, of course, also for companies.”
“Concluding it will be an important step for the normalization of the economy”, he indicated.
It is a position shared by the opposition.
“This is the last opportunity for a constituent process. We are not going to validate a new process, there is not going to be another,” the senator of the right-wing National Renovation (RN) party, Francisco Chahuán, said on local radio.
According to several opinion studies, More than 60% of Chileans also do not agree with starting a third debate.
“It would be completely absurd to bet on something that no longer worked out. Many of the political elite became convinced that holding these assemblies is not a good idea because anything can happen,” says Isabel Castillo.
According to Javier Sajuria, something that could happen in the short term is that some parliamentarians want to do reforms to the current Constitution.
“From the right, they could try to make changes that interested them in the second constitutional proposal, and the left could do the same, promoting initiatives that accommodated them in the first text,” says Javier Sajuria.
In this way, the possibility of Chile leaving behind its current – and controversial – Magna Carta looks increasingly distant.
Two missed opportunities that Chileans – and the world – observe with perplexity.
Click here to read more stories from BBC News World.
And remember that you can receive notifications. Download the latest version of our app and activate them so you don’t miss our best content.
- Do you already know our YouTube channel? Subscribe!