I last visited Chile in July of 2022.
News and conversations with Chileans mostly revolved around one main topic:
The new constitution.
Acute social dissatisfaction and social unrest lead to the country deciding a new constitution was needed. One that would replace that which was drafted by Chile’s 1973 – 1990 military government/dictatorship.
For a year, an assembly of elected officials from all walks of life drafted what would have been the world’s first climate-crisis-fighting constitution.
… would have.
62% of Chile’s people voted against adopting the new constitution.
Why did most Chileans vote against a historic constitution? One that would pave the way. Chile could have been the first country to adopt the world’s first climate change-fighting constitution.
But not to be.
Why?
There are a lot of factors.
Now that the dust has somewhat settled, I attempt to make sense of it all.
These are my three main reasons why Chile’s Climate Fighting Constitution failed:
Reason #1
For starters, the proposed constitution made the environment a consideration in almost every aspect of society and governance, from education to monetary policy. It required the state to cooperate internationally to adapt to and confront the climate crisis.
The proposal mentioned nature dozens of times, granted nature its own rights to be protected, and created an agency to defend those rights.
That is all very cool for us sustainability lovers.
But the proposal also enshrined more than 100 new constitutional rights, from abortion to housing. And to the people of Chile, immediate social priorities such as the ones above seemed more pressing than sustainability.
The linkages of how climate change is currently affecting Chile’s economy do not resonate as strongly as the need for shelter, employment, and access to quality education.
And here’s the thing…
I would say most Chileans looked at the constitution less as an environmental solution and more as a tool to bring economic rights, guarantees, and equality.
So that’s the first thing to keep in mind. The other thing is that…
Reason #2
It’s normal for democracies to modify their constitutions using amendments and referendums (i.e. Brexit). Chile went one step further, they tried to totally rewrite the entire constitution without any politicians or constitutional law experts!
For general context, the current constitution was put in place in 1980 by one of the bloodiest dictatorships in Latin America.
Chilean society changed since then.
90% of Chileans are in financial debt, consumerism is a national sport, and the economy keeps pedaling on monthly cycles based on consumer credit. Consumer debt and social inequalities keep growing by the second.
The 2019 social revolts in Chile highlighted the gruesome inequalities the country has created by giving too much power to the private sector. Today, the corporate sector controls most water resources, health care services, and even people’s pension funds.
Personally, having lived in Chile between the ages of 30-39, I experienced a deeply polarized society. Chileans will loosely call you a communist for sharing anti-Pinochet sentiment or a fascist for living in a particular neighborhood.
And Chilean society is quick to pass judgment. But nothing divides the country more than if you are pro or anti-Pinochet… still.
Importantly, the latter is not said.
It is deduced.
Pro-Pinochet is synonymous with the right and anti-Pinochet with the left. If you happen to share your views on anything political you will quickly be put into either the pro or anti-Pinochet camp.
There is no in-between.
The 2020 referendum in Chile asking citizens if they wanted a change and where 4/5 Chileans voted to replace the constitution seemed like maybe, finally, surely the days of Pinochet were over.
Unlike in neighboring Argentina, there has never been a national recognition of the true extent of the human rights violations committed during the military government. Point in case, Pinochet was granted a lifelong Senatorial seat. That made it impossible to try him in a Chilean court until the day he passed.
So why did the new constitution not go through? Is there such a thing as “too much” change? Did the changes propose not to reflect popular demand?
In assembling the constitution-writing committee, known as the “constituent assembly” or Constitutional Convention, Chileans elected numerous outsiders, such as scientists and journalists, with little to no political experience.
But as these modern-day “framers” soon became public figures, Chileans were fast to pass judgment...
… and as I said before, with most Chileans – there is no in-between.
They were almost all categorized as “Leftists”. Remember, these are meant to be non-political constituents. But it is also true that their attitudes and sentiment meant conservative thought had little representation in the proposed constitutional text.
Reason #3
In the end, a lot of issues that were approved by the assembly were contentious for the rest of Chilean society.
New rights for Indigenous people including governing their territories and having their own court system, is still one of the most polarizing issues in the country.
Right-wing parties, that had been sidelined by the 2020 referendum, dedicated much of their efforts to discredit the process as well as constituents and alarming society at large.
“You will lose your houses”
“We will become the new Venezuela”
All lies…
But the people believed them.
Hesitation and middle-class resentment slowly crept back in. The Right’s messaging became stronger. A Presidential election between two political extremes took place during the constitutional process.
Chile’s unified outcry for change slowly defaulted back to left vs right, Pinochet vs Anti-Pinochet.
And on September 4, 2022… a climate change-fighting constitution drafted by the people for the people was rejected by most Chileans.
What happens now is yet unclear.
Chilean voters broke turnout records when they elected the youngest president in their history, Gabriel Boric. They broke the same record only six months later to reject a new constitution that would replace the old one Pinochet has left in place until now.
62% of Chilean voters rejected a charter that would have enshrined a record number of rights, mandated gender parity in government institutions, prioritized the environment, and declared Chile a plurinational state so that Indigenous peoples could self-rule alongside a national government.
“No” to this modern constitution was the safer choice. Chileans are living in a time of unsafety and insecurity. The stagnating economy, ever-increasing violence (atypical to Chile in the past decades) increased reports of organized crime, and a big influx of migrants from around the region made the new constitutional project unviable in this moment in history.
Chile’s post-dictatorship era was until recently perceived as politically stable, market-friendly, democratic, and conducive to upward mobility from the lower to the middle class.
If the opportunity to draft and own the most sustainable and climate-friendly constitution ever adopted by any nation is to ever come again, the road ahead must ensure that ALL Chileans agree on the essentials.
And as the Chilean actor Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian) says, “This is the way”. Chile just needs to find the right moment to make it happen.