Gautam Bhatia1. Okay, here is a brief thread on Chile. As you know, there have been widespread protests in recent days, driven primarily by economic inequality (Chile is one of the most unequal countries in the world). Counter-intuitively, at the root of this inequality is the Chilean Constitution. The Constitution was drafted in 1980, as part of a transition from military to civil rule.
2. The only problem: the drafting of the Constitution was entirely under the control of the dictator Augusto Pinochet, who had come to power in 1973 in a violent, US-supported military coup, overthrowing the elected socialist President, Salvador Allende. Among other things, Pinochet was advised by economists from the University of Chicago ("the Chicago Boys"), and implemented extreme neoliberal policies.
3. The 1980 Chilean Constitution reflected both the imperatives of militarism as well as neoliberalism. It provided extensive powers to the military to "intervene" in democracy, and also made social reform legislation constitutionally impossible. As this article says: "It’s about 30 years of an economic model elevated to the level of constitutional principle."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/24/democracy-chile-protesters-pinera-pinochet
See also: https://nacla.org/article/emergence-guardian-democracy
4. The interesting part about this is that most Constitutions don't prescribe an economic model. They guarantee civil rights, but leave questions about the economy to governments. Recall that in India, during the framing of the Constitution, many people wanted to enshrine socialism into the text of the Constitution; Ambedkar pointed out that economic models changed generation to generation, and it should be the task of elected governments to decide economic policy.
5. In Chile on the other hand, neoliberalism was elevated to the level of a constitutional principle, making it extremely difficult to dislodge. Thus, even after the end of the dictatorship and the departure of Pinochet, the Constitution acted as a break on what progressive governments (such as that of Bachelet) could achieve.
6. For this reason, unlike in many other countries, many Chileans see the Constitution not as a charter of freedom, but as an impediment to it. This brings us to the 2019 protests.
7. After widespread protests, the Chilean government has agreed on a process to do away with the Pinochet-era Constitution. If you read Spanish, you can read the draft agreement here (I'll translate the gist):
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10162906560050422&set=pcb.10162906561040422&type=3&theater
8. Basically, the Agreement says that in April 2020, there will be a yes/no referendum on the Pinochet-era Chilean Constitution. If a majority votes to abolish that Constitution, it goes.
At that point, a process will be put in place for a new Constitution. The people will vote for the form that the Constituent Assembly will take - direct elections/50% representation of political parties etc.
9. That process is due to take place in September 2020. Then they will move ahead with the drafting of the new Constitution.
Of course, the April 2020 referendum is the big roadblock. If a majority approves the Pinochet Constitution, then the process ends right there. And as Brexit has shown us, referendums are unpredictable.
10. But if they get past that, then things will get really interesting and exciting. An opportunity for a fresh start, and a new Constitution - written in the economic and social climate of 2020 - will be fascinating to watch.
- fin -
Prithul@gautambhatia fascinating summary.. on a related note, do you think referendums are a robust and dependable method to gauge public sentiment? Or are they a fleeting snapshot of a dynamic metric, susceptible to political maneuvering like we saw in Brexit?
@prithul This is a good question. I have a Colombian colleague who is very nervous about the referendum being part of this agreement - a potential trap by the government. But at the same time, look at the South African Constitution, whose provisions were put to a referendum - which helped enshrine its democratic legitimacy So it's a tough question.
prahlad@gautambhatia @prithul Did the USA constitution was also put for public approval in some way?
shirish@gautambhatia @Prahlad @prithul fascinating thread. I had read the chilean constitution and some of the changes but not the viewpoint you bought to the fore. FWIW, civil rights was something the African-Americans fought for. See the http://project1619.org/ which seeks to put summations right what has historically been seen only as a north-south American issue.
Ashwin Baindur@Prahlad @gautambhatia @prithul I don't know about the US Constitution, but in many US elections, alongwith leaders, propositions get out up for bring voted. If a proposition gets majority votes, it becomes law or comes into being.
@ashwin_baindur @Prahlad @prithul In State elections, yeah. That sort of thing can work both ways, though. California once passed a Proposition that would have allowed racially restrictive covenanting (i.e., white property-owners entering into agreements not to sell to black buyers). The US Supreme Court had to strike it down on the ground that it violated the federal Constitution.
@gautambhatia yes there's two opposite, but equally defendable arguments to this. In my limited understanding though, referendums work in the basic assumption that the electorate is sufficiently informed on the subject in question. However, if you have an under-informed or misinformed population... things tend to get messy.
The same can be said of democratic elections in general, but the outcomes of those aren't as black and white as referendum yes/no questions.
Dr Nabakishor HaobijamThe biggest factor that will tilt the tide with be how much the 'majority' tilt as a fundamental understanding of 'democracy'.
RP@gautambhatia @prithul I think Switzerland provides the best model for referendums, I've heard they're frequently conducted there. Their model of having largely independent cantons seems to allow for this, but Swiss opinion on the Brexit mess seems to be that 1. Adequate info was not communicated and 2. That yes/no was extremely reductive for such a complex question.
@RP @gautambhatia yes exactly. Swiss governance in general is a model on how public opinion is imbibed into decision making itself. But for larger, more diverse populations I'm not sure if it can be scaled up (for want of a better word).
@gautambhatia @RP would love to hear more on that. Any links to lit sources would be appreciated (birdsite included)
@prithul @gautambhatia same here!