Report from Chile: Why the new constitution was rejected and what we can learn
/
In 2019, millions of Chileans poured into the streets to demand more of a say in their government. Now, they are doing the hard work of figuring out how to forge a new way forward. (Photo taken by Carlos Molina)
Following massive street protests, the Chilean people voted to draft a new constitution. But the resulting proposal was rejected. Why? In this post, Felipe Perillán Caviedes, a lawyer with People Powered member FIMA, offers his thoughts on what happened. He concludes that to be successful, constitutional initiatives should:
Include broad public participation in each stage of the process: approval to go ahead, formation of a drafting body and final vote.
Fund and provide widespread civic education.
Use a digital participation platform, supplemented with in-person outreach, to make it easier for the public to engage in the deliberative process.
On September 4, after 154 elected citizens worked virtually nonstop for 10 months to craft the 170-page, 499-article document, 64% of Chileans rejected a new constitution that would have made higher education free, ensured gender parity in all areas of government, created a process to return land to indigenous peoples, and mandated the state to prevent and mitigate climate change. Around the world, advocates of participatory democracy and other progressives — who had lifted up Chile as a beacon of hope — collectively breathed a sigh of despair.
Why did this happen? After all, the drafting of the new constitution followed protests that brought millions into the streets in October 2019. Eighty percent of voters approved the call for a new constitution, which was championed by left-wing congressman Gabriel Boric, who went on to become the country’s president. And the delegates to the convention formed to draft the constitution were popularly elected, composed of 50% women, 50% men.
Pam Bailey, communications director for People Powered, interviewed Felipe Perillán Caviedes, a lawyer with FIMA, a Santiago-based NGO and one of our partners in the Climate Democracy Action program, which just kicked off with 40 participants.
***
What was FIMA’s involvement in the process to draft a new constitution for Chile?
Even before the official constitutional process kicked off, we developed what we called an “ecological constitution,” which we used to open a dialogue with people on what any new constitution would need to protect the environment. The plan was to submit the resulting proposals to the representatives working on the actual constitution. We talked about the rights of nature, for example, and a new way to govern the use of water.
It was mainly informative at first. Later, when we had the actual proposal for the new constitution, we saw that a lot of what we were advocating for was included! We traveled to every region in Chile and collaborated with other groups, organizing meetings and seminars and distributing fliers on the streets. Our goal was to go beyond the universities and talk to Chileans who are not normally engaged in environmental issues. We wanted to awaken them to the fact that the environment is related to each one of us. That even if they didn't see themselves as an ecologist, they do have thoughts on how we should manage our natural spaces.
Felipe speaks about what an environmentally friendly constitution would look like.
Were you surprised by how ‘environmentally friendly’ the draft constitution was? And then by the resulting rejection by the people?
We were a little bit surprised by the proposed constitution; we got more of what we wanted than we ever thought possible. So, of course, we were happy! It was a huge advance, compared with the current, Pinochet-era constitution.
It's instructive, though, to review the origin of the process. In October 2019, Chile experienced huge strikes, in which people told the government they weren’t happy, that there were a lot of things that were not all right. The actual call on the streets was not specifically for a new constitution, though. The possibility of a new constitution was the response of some politicians to the situation.
Photo by Susan Hidalgo
But, because there were a lot of people who were not happy with this decision, and because there was a lack of clear leadership and a lot of competing interests among the protesters, a plebiscite was held to decide if that was the way Chile should go. Yes or no? And, if yes, how should we do it? Do we want the drafting body to be composed half by members chosen via elections and half from Congress? Or do we want a body composed only of people elected by the people for this purpose? Around 80% of voters said yes to a new constitution, and they chose the 100% popular-election approach.
So, then a vote was organized to choose the district representatives who would write the new constitution.
Why do you think the new constitution was rejected, when the people chose the writers?
I think there were at least three big issues: the quality of information provided, the process itself, and the popularity of President Gabriel Boric.
The official promotion of the proposed constitution started in July, but the more conservative wing of our politics started talking about it on social media and on TV about a year before, when not even one article had been approved yet. It was a misinformation campaign.
Sure, the conservatives had representatives in the convention, but they were a minority. Plus, some of the dynamics were changing, including the global and local economy, due to Russia’s war on Ukraine. So, there was a fear of change.
As for the process, there were three steps: The first was the vote to say whether a new constitution should be written. The second was the election of members of the constitutional convention. And the third was the vote on whether to approve or reject the resulting proposal. The first two steps involved a lot fewer people than the final one, because although registration was automatic, voting was voluntary. In contrast, the last step involved all the people eligible to vote, because voting was mandatory. In fact, you were fined if you didn't vote. After all, the constitution would define how we develop and work for the next maybe 40 years. So, a process with massive participation was desired. But its design wasn’t consistent.
That meant there were more than 6 million people who participated in the final vote who were not represented in the earlier rounds. In other words, the people chosen to write the constitution didn’t necessarily represent the broader public. The convention was packed with people pushing a certain agenda, like water, social security, etc., and they answered mainly to the people who voted for them.
And finally, I believe the rejection was partly a punishment of President Boric, because some people said the government hadn’t handled the process very well. The president was one of the main people who promoted the agreement that led to the drafting of a new constitution.
So, right now, the political-right parties are feeling very empowered. They feel the rejection of the proposal is support for the rightwing parties, although I don't think it is. Now, everyone’s discussing how to start a new constitutional process and the conservatives are trying to establish limitations. There are some things they don't want to change, so after weeks of negotiation, the political parties have arrived at some “boundaries” that should be considered in the new constitution..
Examining the process through the lens of participatory democracy, what do you think should have happened and can now be done?
First, we need a more consistent process. We of course want the most participation possible. The more people who vote the better. I would have chosen mandatory participation from the beginning, but it’s not good to switch in the middle.
Second, we need more comprehensive, quality information for the public. Every big media platform has its own editorial line, and they communicated what they wanted to. If you investigate the owners of the media chains, you’ll see that they tend to be conservative and against the constitutional proposal. They are not impartial, but they make it look like they are.
The constitutional convention had a communications function, but it wasn't that good. They didn’t have the budget for it. True, all the sessions were public, and people could go on the internet and access the platform and watch the debates. But a lot of people were working at jobs when the sessions were underway. So you need summaries of what happened every day, etc. and information on how the participation process was working.
For example, it was possible to introduce any proposal supported with a certain number of signatures. And because of that, there were lots of initiatives that were deliberated. But there was misunderstanding about how that process actually worked, including what was required for the initiatives to be approved. The proposals that got the necessary signatures weren’t automatically approved; they were discussed and revised by the commission in charge of the topic. So, none of the proposals that went through that process ended up being exactly the same as the proposed text, and some were rejected.
Would it have helped to supplement the constitutional convention with a digital participation platform, to allow broader public engagement?
I think yes. I do believe that participation in the constitutional process needs to be improved to facilitate access of the people to information and allow them to present their ideas and learn what happens to them. And it would have been very helpful to the members of the convention to know how people were reacting to what was happening on the inside.
But on the other hand, the people who would have participated would probably have been limited to those who are interested in politics. In Chile, we have a lot of people who are not interested in politics. That’s also why I’m not sure it would have been a good idea to have implemented the random process used for a citizens’ assembly to convene the constitutional convention. Everyone is part of politics, but not everyone has a will or desire to make politics. And that could lead to control of the conversation by people with that will. The result would be an inequity in the discussion.
Online outreach is best when supplemented with in-person education by individuals who residents trust, not only to help them learn the technology but to motivate them to participate — like by showing the potential impact on their daily lives. Should this be part of the increased education you mentioned?
I agree with what you’re saying, that we have to tie politics into daily life, like water. FIMA tried to get information closer to the people. We went to rural areas, for example, so we could talk to people and inform them how the proposals would impact them.
But we are a small NGO, and with a specific area of work, so it is impossible to reach the entire population. What we really need is civic education in general. In Chile, that mostly stopped during and after the Pinochet dictatorship. When we went around the country speaking, we could see that people didn't know enough about basic concepts like what a constitution can and can't do. They did not understand, for example, that constitutions are tools that mark the values of a country and what kind of changes can be made. They are not for specific regulations. This is where we really need public participation, including online platforms. Unfortunately, the process didn't allow much time to do this. They wanted the new process to be completely finished within a year.
What do you expect to happen now?
Well, there is what I would like to happen and what I think will really happen. Right now, the president doesn't have much power over the constitutional process. It’s up to the congress, which is mostly under the control of the opposition, the political right wing. And they're trying to put some limits on the power of the constitutional body. Actually, a few on the political right are saying, “You lost, so there's no reason for a new process.” The rest are saying, “We need to rethink the composition of the body.” They’ve brought up again the 50-50 possibility – half elected and half from Congress. And they want to add an experts committee, with some saying it should have decision-making power and others saying it would just offer technical assistance and consultation. We still don't know what's going to happen with that.
The bottom line: The opposition is feeling very empowered and it's going to keep on evolving.