She Prefers Bad to Terrible

“I prefer a bad constitution to a terrible one!”

This was ex-president of Chile, Michelle Bachelet, explaining her vote on Sunday to reject the latest proposal for a new constitution for her country.  Fifty six percent of voters voted as she did, and the proposal was defeated, leaving Chileans to operate under the guidance of the existing constitution.

Chileans have spent the last four years struggling with a constitution rewrite process. In an earlier post I suggested that the process and Chileans’ determination to proceed with this monumental task was like the “Energizer Bunny” of the Eveready battery advertisement. But lately, with less optimism and waning faith in the process, it seemed instead more like the old-fashioned carousel, going round and round while different configurations of the Chilean body politic attempted to lean way out and grasp the elusive gold ring as it passes, just out of reach; the ring, of course, being a new constitution to replace the 1980 Pinochet-inspired Magna Carta that Chileans have lived with for decades.

We have noted in earlier postings on this blog that this process to rid Chile of the 1980 constitution began ten years ago, in the second Michelle Bachelet government, but more intensely after the 2019 social uprising, the estallido. It was facilitated by Congress amending the actual constitution to allow for a plebiscite to ask Chileans if they really wanted a new constitution. By a large margin (80%), they confirmed that they did, indeed, so they further amended the constitution to create a Constitutional Convention. This body, which can be characterized as heavily leftist and progressive, drew up a transformational proposal that was soundly rejected (62%) in another plebiscite on September 19, 2022.

Almost immediately, probably too soon and with too little analysis and reflection of the reasons for the failure of the first attempt, they embarked on a different process, which included the election of members for a Constitutional Council. This time, in an open, democratic election, Chileans chose an overwhelmingly conservative group, surely a reaction to the unpopular proposal written by the prior Convention. 

This Council produced a new proposal, it was printed, distributed, and on December 17, 2023, the fate of this proposal was determined in yet another plebiscite. Again, just two choices for the voter: “I Approve”, or “I Reject”. This was the fifth country-wide election in the past four years in which Chileans have turned out to vote on the subject of a new constitution. It went down in clear and resounding defeat.

Proponents of a new constitution have for years based their argument on one basic issue: that the existing constitution was conceived in dictatorship, an original sin that needs to be reversed. In spite of the fact that this constitution has been amended many times over the past four decades to remove most of its original anti-democratic, authoritarian features, and actually carries the signature of Ricardo Lagos, a respected Socialist President, a new constitution written in democracy, they argue, could wash away not only its lineage with the Dictator, but also the “neo-liberal” socio-economic model imposed by “Pinochet’s constitution”. Four years ago, there was a generalized feeling that Chileans could now overcome the original sin, by conceiving a constitution that defined Chile as the “Casa de Todos“, a home for everyone, with a governing framework that favored no group over another, that would be less individualistic, relying on more solidarity; essentially a social democratic State, European style.

Construction of the Casa de Todos now has proven to be wishful thinking. A broadly acceptable constitution would have to be the product of broadly drawn agreements between the parties involved. The first attempt by the Convention, motivated by inertia for social change coming out of the estallido (referred to as Octubrismo), then further encouraged by the euphoria of election of Gabriel Boric and his coalition of leftist parties, ended in defeat due to its extremely progressive proposals.

The proposal of the Council, defeated on Sunday, was much more conservative than the one turned down a year ago. And many, like Michelle Bachelet, felt the proposal was more conservative than the existing one. For the past few weeks Chileans were subjected to campaigns by proponents and opponents of the proposal, with arguments in the media often including exaggerations and even false statements, admittedly from both sides. One conclusion which seems well founded, though, is that the process has not produced the breadth of agreement a new constitution should have to be valid and provide a lasting framework for managing the country’s affairs.

With the defeat of the proposal, a most interesting situation has occurred. If the proposal had been approved, President Boric would have had the responsibility, along with the Congress, to implement the new constitution. That would have been a very tough pill for him to swallow, since he clearly opposed to the proposal. What’s more, approval of the proposal would have been seen as a victory for the Right, and strengthened the Right in the next presidential election in less than two years.

Now that the proposal has been rejected, the country will continue to function under the existing Constitution, let’s call it the Pinochet-Lagos Constitution (P-L). This creates several dilemmas, foremost that Boric will have to live with the constitution he and his supporters have defined as the evil that haunts and limits Chile’s development. He has stated he will not support further efforts to write a new constitution during his term in office (two more years). It has been pointed out that as it stands now, the existing P-L Constitution is more easily amended than that of the new proposal. And, in crass political terms, the rejection of the proposal essentially written and supported by the conservative Right should weaken their position in the next presidential election.

So, coming out of the plebiscite, we have President Boric and his progressive governing coalition, relieved that they will not be required to implement a constitutional proposal they argued against. But they are still stuck with the P-L Constitution against which they have railed for years, and a legislative branch they do not control.

It’s probably time to stop the carrousel, everyone get off, relax during the end of year holidays, then go on the inviolable Chilean summer vacation to the coast or southern lakes. But if there seems to be a deep-felt relief that the constitutional rewrite will stop for now, there is an equally intense felt need that much hard work, including a broad range of necessary consensus, must happen quickly on the key legislation for improved security, reforms of primary and secondary education, housing shortages, and health care. So far, President Boric has little to show on these fronts, and his low approval ratings attest to that.

The way forward will not be easy. Chile’s economic grown for 2024 may only reach 1.7%, unemployment is too high at close to 9.0%. Inflation may be slowly subsiding, now at 8.0%. The government is facing headwinds of its own making, corruption in the use of public funds, mixed messages regarding the use of public force to confront increasing violent, narcotics related crime previously unknown in Chile.

Earlier high hopes that the global demand for lithium, which Chile has large reserves of, would produce an economic windfall also seem to be waning, as the complex international market and Boric’s own scheme to have the Chilean state manage the industry in the future have lengthened the timeframe for benefits to accrue to the nation.

At this point, our final thoughts on Chile’s quest for a new constitution are, as is so often the case, a mixed bag. Both the far left and the far right had their chance to direct the constitutional rewrite process; both failed. Some might conclude that now the “center” must step up to the task, the center being defined possibly by those groups most inclined to enter into policies that are compromises, products of consensus decision making. This, of course, is the policy making usually accomplished by the legislative branch, ultimately in concert with the President. But of course, you might think, that is the same collection of politicians and policy makers that have had a say every step of the way over the past four years of a search for a new constitution. They created each and every step along the way, signed declarations, reformed the constitution, gathered around the table for pictures, but in the end, went their own separate way (22 separate parties), each calculating the effects on the next election.

Boric will probably accomplish very little over the next two years, and that will be a shame for Chile. In ten months Chileans will hold Municipal elections (off to the voting booths again!!), and Presidential and Parliamentary elections in two years. A sign that Chile’s structural constraints to consensus building may be weakening will be if the extremely diffuse array of political parties work now to coalesce around fewer but stronger candidates for these key leadership positions. 

One indicator we will be watching is how, and how soon, the “bad” (her words) constitution again becomes the reason “good” policies can not be legislated or implemented, and the persistent Communist Party reactivates its aspiration to establish a constitutional assembly to write a new constitution for Chile. It will then be time to bring the carrousel out of mothballs, polish the gold ring, and again, round and round…..

In the meantime, we are off to Santiago. Relatives, old friends, familiar wineries like Moretta Wines, Alchemy, Alma Viva, La Despensa await.

Happy Holidays.

Posted in Leesburg, Virginia, on December 18, 2023.

David Joslyn

David Joslyn, after a 45-year career in international development with USAID, Peace Corps, The Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and private sector consulting firms, divides his time between his homes in Virginia and Chile. Since 2010, David has been writing about Chile and Chileans, often based upon his experience with the Peace Corps in Chile and his many travels throughout the country with family and friends.