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 -
Titas Ganguly@gautambhatia Extremely educative thread, thanks. Were there
specific conditions in Chile which required USA to code neo liberal agenda into the Constitution rather than using the usual reforms route? Has this model been implemented in any other nation?
specific conditions in Chile which required USA to code neo liberal agenda into the Constitution rather than using the usual reforms route? Has this model been implemented in any other nation?
@gautambhatia Sir are there any specific criteria based on which you reply to toots/questions? Not being hateful, just wanted to know for the future
shirish@titasganguly @gautambhatia I don't remember all the details but do remember a constitutional amendment I had read in some countries where couple of American companies were given exclusive rights for 99 years to sell to their citizens. The citizens were dis-allowed or it was illegal to even have water from the natural rains occuring. It ook number of years before it became international headlines and they had to give self-sufficiency back to citizens. 1/n
@titasganguly @gautambhatia I'm sure with the info. I shared, if you google it or use whatever search-engine you probably would come to know more. If you do, please share the same here so it enriches everybody :)