The popular rejection of Chile’s proposed new constitution was expected. Its magnitude was not.
This month, nearly 62 percent of the 13 million voters who turned out said no to the draft, which was to replace the Chilean constitution written during former Chilean president Augusto Pinochet’s military dictatorship.
The overwhelming repudiation of the new constitution is a blow to Chilean President Gabriel Boric, who supported it.
Moreover, it clearly showed that the constitutional convention that drafted it went far beyond the aspirations and convictions of the Chilean electorate.
Boric, a former left-wing legislator who was elected president last year, championed the draft written by an assembly largely comprising his allies and companions. As such, he is partly responsible for its failure. While he has announced a Cabinet reshuffle following the referendum loss, he will now be forced to make more tough decisions: which policies to pursue and advisers to keep, and how to keep the reformist promises he made during his campaign.
It is hard to pinpoint what turned Chilean voters against the proposed constitution, but there is no doubt that fake news and disinformation played a part. It was not difficult to convince voters who had not read the draft’s 170 pages and 388 articles that their homes would be taken away, that they would lose their private healthcare benefits and pensions, that abortion would be legal through the ninth month of pregnancy, and that Chile was about to turn into the next Venezuela.
Nevertheless, the proposed constitution’s wide-ranging political and judicial reforms repelled many voters who might otherwise have endorsed many of the social and economic rights it meant to enshrine.
The draft designated Chile as a “plurinational state” and granted indigenous people rights and protections they have long been denied, but it also sought to abolish the Chilean Senate, and called into question the country’s independent and well-respected judiciary by seeking to establish a separate system of indigenous courts. It also included far-reaching environmental protections that, while popular with environmental advocates, frightened many others.
The proposed draft would have guaranteed more than 100 new rights — more than any other constitution in the world. It sought to make universal healthcare a right, establish gender parity in the executive and legislative branches, strengthen labor unions and tighten mining regulations.
Some economists, including the finance ministers of previous center-left administrations, thought all this would cost too much.
However, the proposal could have appealed to a diverse array of constituencies and easily captured more than half the electorate. Instead, it alienated voters who concluded that it would move Chile too far to the left.
This was not the way it was supposed to happen. When mass protests against the previous right-wing government erupted in October 2019, demonstrators adopted the slogan: “It isn’t about 30 pesos, it’s about 30 years” — a clear message that young people were angry about a lot more than a 30 Chilean peso (US$0.03) metro fare increase that catalyzed the movement.
Young Chileans were not impressed by the economic growth and poverty reduction in the three decades since the end of the Pinochet dictatorship. Instead, young people raged against high student debt, expensive private healthcare and pension schemes, extreme inequality and a broader, more intangible sense of exclusion.
For a while, the country’s progressive left seemed to be on a roll. In October 2020, nearly 80 percent of Chileans voted in favor of drawing up a new constitution. Later, academic Elisa Loncon Antileo — a Mapuche — was elected president of the newly created Chilean Constitutional Convention. In December last year, Boric — a 35-year-old socialist and former student campaigner — defeated far-right Chilean presidential candidate Jose Antonio Kast by a large margin.
However, Boric’s first months in power were rough, owing to the economic damage Chile suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic. GDP growth slowed, the budget deficit widened, inflation rose, violent crime increased (albeit from a low level), and Boric’s coalition struggled to keep its more radical members in line.
Despite taking office as the new constitution was already receiving its finishing touches, voters came to associate Boric with the proposed draft, which did not help his plummeting poll numbers.
Given this, the results of this month’s referendum should not come as a surprise. Chileans are more conservative than the events leading up to the vote would suggest, and are generally wary of attempts to break with what many consider a long period of prosperity.
In the 30 years since the fall of Pinochet, Chile moved from low to middle-income status. Its economic development has been slower than expected, and there is still much work to be done.
However, nearly two-thirds of Chileans have signaled that they do not want to jeopardize that promise. They probably still want a new constitution, but they want social democracy, perhaps even Christian social democracy. What they definitely do not want, as they showed this month, is a revolution.
Jorge Castaneda, a former Mexican minister of foreign affairs, is a professor at New York University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath