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 -
Sai Krishna@gautambhatia thanks for the thread. Does Chile have a provision for legislative amendments to the constitution? If yes, wouldn't that be a more defendable, albeit tougher, alternative to something as drastic as a referendum?
@gautambhatia dependable*
@Saivadla They require super-majorities for certain kinds of economic changes even through legislation. And the Chilean Court has explicitly stated that the Constitution is not "neutral", but tilted towards neoliberalism - and must be interpreted as such. That basically makes a replacement imperative - it's like a Constitution that is future-proofed against reform. The closest analogy would be our 42nd Amendment - think of an entire Constitution structured like that.
Zeitgeist@gautambhatia Why is it called neoliberal if essentially the military had extensive powers and I assume controls over the market?
@samsiss The military could intervene - that was the military part of the Constitution. The neoliberal part was that it made economic reform legislation constitutionally more difficult, and the Court interpreted the Constitution explicitly stating that it was slanted towards neoliberalism.
@gautambhatia Thanks for the reply. Speaks volumes about Ambedkar's vision that has carried us so far. Why are the Chileans so aggrieved though, they should look at India and understand that the book does not matter in the long run! ;-)
Ashwin Baindur@samsiss @gautambhatia that's not right to say, imho. Our Constitution suffers from the defects inherent to all democracies, that they permit those who who wish to dismantle it to come to power and use the provisions of change to dismantle democracy instead of improving the legal position.
@ashwin_baindur @gautambhatia Sir, you probably missed my wink emoji at the end. I agree with what you are saying. My point was that the book itself is a precondition but not sufficient for a democracy if there is a lack of commitment to it.
@samsiss @gautambhatia oh yeah. Thanks for pointing out. I did miss it. 😃 Lol