By Michael Brand
The latest version of Chile’s revised Constitution failed last Sunday. Stemming from a military dictatorship, Chile’s current Constitution is outdated and fails to protect civil rights. In November of 2019, the country saw the harms of its lacking framework. A government which made promises to bring economic prosperity and solve every problem under the sun had not come to fruition for 30 years, so “more than a million people took to the streets of Santiago” and protested against the failing government (Taub). In light of these protests, lawmakers realized the reforms to the Constitution were necessary. In a referendum in 2020 roughly “80% of Chileans voted in favor of changing the country’s constitution” (Politi). However, it was unable to come to fruition.
The new Constitution had 388 Articles and would “have legalized abortion, mandated universal health care, required gender parity in government, given Indigenous groups greater autonomy, empowered labor unions, strengthened regulations on mining and granted rights to nature and animal” (Nicas). The proposal of the document which looked to unite the people seems to have divided them. Chile has been a relatively conservative country for most of its history, so the proposed progressive Constitution - which at 170 pages would have been the longest Constitution in the history of democracies - was too complex, confusing, and contentious for the 62% of voters who rejected it.
One major area of controversy surrounded indeginous rights. The Constitution would have allowed Indigenous groups to be “recognized as their own nations, with their own governing structures and court systems'' (Nicas). Given that the proposed Constitution was trying to fix the division in the country, it makes sense that many were “uneasy about the emphasis on the autonomy of Indigenous peoples, and the insistence on ‘plurinationalism’ in a land that prides itself on its unity” (Dorfman). This issue was not the only one that caused division.
Another major area was the document’s strong environmentalist stance, having “50 environmental norms in the draft” (Galaz). Within the norms, Article 108 stands out. It would grant nature rights. This concept, environmental personhood, isn’t new and was adopted by “37 other countries and Indigenous nations” (Surma). The problem is that the more progressive a country gets in terms of environmentalism, the more corporations do to try and stop progressive. For Chile’s the progressive legislation caused “mining, agricultural and energy companies, which use about 80% of Chile’s water, [to lobby] against the draft constitution” (Ortega). The extensive lobbying and spread of misinformation surrounding the proposed Constitution convinced voters it wasn’t worthy of being passed.
Chile’s proposed Constitution promised wins for indeginous rights, civil advocacy, and environmentalists. Unfortunately at over 100 pages, and 350 articles, it proved to be too complex for voters to understand. Confusion caused by the implications of Indigenous peoples sovereignty and misinformation passed by corporations did not help the cause. In the coming months, Chile will have to reform this document to be less continuous. Failing to do so risks civil unrest on an unprecedented scale.
Comments