After the overwhelming results of the constitutional plebiscite in Chile, the President of the Republic and the leaders of the political parties declared their intention to continue with a process of constitutional change. In this context, what will be the way to design and ratify a new Constitution?
Although the result of the rejection was categorical and the law 21,200 that established the process indicated that if this option prevailed, the current Constitution would remain in force, Chile would have to carry out a new constituent process.
It must be borne in mind that the plebiscites were not a success, but part of a process and, therefore, cannot be assumed in an isolated or partial way, but with a systemic approach. This vision leads us to persevere in the search for the common good, valuing dialogue and democratic mechanisms as models for resolving conflicts and building a plural society. A system in which the Constitution is the basis for the State to assume the role that the community itself grants it, safeguarding the rights and duties of people, sectors and institutions.
Therefore, the decision to continue with the process of drafting a new Constitution rests solely with the citizens. In this sense, one cannot forget that this is not a merely legal issue, but essentially a political one. This, given the political consensus on the elaboration of a new Magna Carta. However, there are differences on whether or not to hold a new plebiscite, or on the mechanism to be used for this purpose.
Some of the ideas that emerged are the creation of a commission of experts, proposed by the coalition of center-right and right-wing parties, Chile Vamos. Another idea is that the responsibility falls on the National Congress itself, as proposed by sectors of the center, and the Democratic Socialism and Apruebo Dignidad parties support the idea of convening another convention. The president, in turn, proposed that the new constitution be drawn up by a Convention and a committee.
In addition to the different ideas, it should be borne in mind that concentrating the writing of the new Constitution solely on a committee of experts, as has been promoted by some conservative political sectors, as opposed to a new convention, can entail risks that affect legitimacy. Above all, given the possible contents linked to the elites that do not respond to the expectations of the majority of citizens. The equation between outbreak, entry plebiscite and exit plebiscite remains a component that must be read carefully before deciding how to proceed with the process.
It is true that a new entry plebiscite can be tiring for a population that has faced more than ten elections in the last three years. However, given that Law No. 21,200 did not stipulate a new process, the new timetable must begin with a referendum on whether or not to endorse a new Constitution and a second consultation on the mechanism to be used.
As for the mechanism to be used, given previous experiences and the current context, having a co-writing or bicameral mechanism could be an alternative to be evaluated.
It would consist of two entities: on the one hand, a committee of experts appointed (number to be determined) by different bodies such as the Council of Rectors of Chilean Universities, the network or grouping of study centers and union organizations, among others. This committee would be responsible for proposing a draft.
The second entity would be a Convention directly elected by the citizens, according to the current districts. It would be responsible for incorporating, ratifying or modifying the content of the draft proposed by the committee.
Both co-editing bodies should make their agreements on the basis of 2/3 of their members and both should consider criteria of gender parity and proportional representation of indigenous peoples.
A key point that could be incorporated concerns the active participation of society in the constituent process. This cannot be limited only to electoral aspects: there must be mechanisms that allow a substantive incorporation of people in the writing and discussion of the text. And, finally, the draft Constitution approved by the Convention must be submitted to a national plebiscite with mandatory participation.
An alternative of this nature would make it possible to maintain the delegation of constituent power to a Convention, incorporate political-technical variables from experts through the Committee, promote citizen participation and place approval or rejection in the hands of the constituent.
Citizen participation and the strengthening of democracy cannot be neglected in the interests of transitory majorities. In other words, the defense or objection to mandatory voting and/or a new plebiscite based on the electoral projection of one or another alternative is worrying.
The Chilean democratic system will be strengthened to the extent that it can institutionally channel social demands. Hence the relevance of understanding the writing of a new constitution as the beginning of a new stage immersed in a broader context, where citizens must be the protagonists and where the triumph of one or another alternative cannot be perceived as a failure of the system. . The exit plebiscite was a gain for Chilean democracy. The responsibility to continue a timely, coherent and legitimate process is a challenge for the government, congressmen and political parties.
With a wealth of experience honed over 4+ years in journalism, I bring a seasoned voice to the world of news. Currently, I work as a freelance writer and editor, always seeking new opportunities to tell compelling stories in the field of world news.
