More than a confrontation between left and right, this Sunday’s referendum (4), in Chile, in which the new Constitution was rejected, marks a clash of generations and a defeat for Santiago against the rest of the country, in the view of Eugenio Tironi. , an experienced sociologist and political consultant.
For him, the Constituent Assembly was wrong, not realizing the discontent of part of society that embarked on a conservative wave, but President Gabriel Boric has a chance to improve his management if he learns from the lessons of defeat. The leftist, in the sociologist’s view, has been skillfully handling political negotiation.
What did the result of the plebiscite mean? We knew that rejection was more likely to win, but not with this force and this level of participation. There was a pattern in recent elections of women, youth and urbanites voting to the left, while rural men voting to the right.
It was a great revenge of the rural world against young progressives of Santiago. A kind of attempt to make them see reality, to revalue patriotic symbols, to fight an idea of fragmentation with another of unity, to put security before climate change.
Is it correct to analyze the plebiscite as a confrontation of the right against the left? This aspect exists, but there were several clashes: one generational, of the elders against a certain arrogance of this young government; from the periphery of the country against Santiago; and a transversal rejection of the idea of plurinationality. This is a tough topic in Chile, part of our foundational myth is that we are a unitary, mestizo country, with no racial or ethnic differences — and that’s what sets us apart from Bolivia, Peru or Ecuador.
The episode of the performance in Valparaíso that scandalized the campaign, when an actor pulled a Chilean flag from the anus of another, had an impact, didn’t it? Surely, because it was a reminder of episodes that shocked an important part of society in the last two years — such as when they installed the Constituent Assembly and did not want to play the national anthem or when they placed the flags of all indigenous nations, but not the national one, in the main hall. It was from there that the Chilean flag became the symbol of rejection and the anthem was sung in several of its acts, as well as in the celebration of Sunday.
Was the Constituent Assembly wrong? Yes, not realizing that part of the population had been feeling an escalating discontent since the beginning of the pandemic. It can be said that she did not dialogue with this sentiment, which has a more conservative and recent background. It has nothing to do with Pinochetism, but it is rooted in problems in Chile today and led to the victory of [José Antonio] Cast in the first round [da eleição em 2021]. This sector considered the text extreme, with manifestations of an ideological tone. There was a mismatch between the trend of part of the population and the wishes of the constituents.
Do you believe that, finally, there will be a new Constitution? Is an agreement possible? Yes, obviously. Care must be taken in interpreting Sunday. We have already committed the sin of overinterpreting the 2019 demonstrations: we thought it was a sign of a historical trend, that we were seeing the birth of a new society, less nationalistic, in tune with contemporary generational agendas. But it is possible that it was only a moment.
And we also have to look at the plebiscite in this way. Perhaps it is not a sign of an unmistakable tendency toward conservatism. These days, political reactions are very volatile.
If so, can today’s defeat be tomorrow’s victory? Of course, what is being seen as the defeat of this new left could be an improvement in the current government in the medium term, provided that extreme positions are softened. It must be remembered that this political group broke a taboo that said it was impossible to change the Constitution. They took the limit of the possible a little further. And it will be difficult that, even with pressure from the right, the environmental issue, gender parity, administrative decentralization will be removed from the new Charter.
This new left may get upset and say that they took the stage and were not applauded, but it is certain that they managed to put on the party music.
Is there a risk of polarization? I don’t see that, I decide in the style of Boric and the institutional tradition of Chile. He grew up in the parliamentary environment, he knows how to dialogue. It is a new style, more informal and different from [ex-presidente Sebastián] Pinera, more conflicted. And in Chile there is no division like in Argentina. When [Jair] Bolsonaro commented on Boric’s alleged involvement with acts of vandalism, all parties lined up in solidarity with him. The issue of national sovereignty is very strong here.
However, I see a risk of friction with the right because, with the strength of the votes of rejection, the parties can ask for participation in the government program, in economic reforms. It is possible that the government will have to give in.
Could the delay in arriving at the new Charter bring negative suspense to the economy? The economy is no longer doing well anyway. It is not political stability that would affect it more than other factors. Peru is pure instability and grows more than Chile. The problem is that we are in a very big recession, due to the injection of money into the pandemic with government aid and withdrawals from pension funds, not to mention the War in Ukraine.
x-ray | Eugenio Tironi, 71
Doctor in sociology from the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Ciencias Sociales in Paris and member of the Academy of Social, Political and Moral Sciences of the Instituto de Chile. He was a collaborator of the Patricio Aylwin and Eduardo Frei governments and head of communication for Ricardo Lagos
