Constitutional Failure in Chile: "NO" Wins Again

Chile has closed, at least for the moment, a defining chapter in its recent history. After a second failed attempt to replace the Constitution inherited from Augusto Pinochet's regime, the southern country largely opted to maintain the current text, albeit with its multiple democratic reforms. This outcome marks the end of a turbulent process that began with the social unrest of 2019 and kept the nation in suspense for more than four years.

The path toward a new Constitution began with a massive expression of popular discontent in October 2019, whose demands prominently included the drafting of a new Fundamental Charter. In a 2020 entry plebiscite, more than 80% of voters supported the idea of ​​amending the constitution.

However, the initial enthusiasm ran into the complexity of the task. The first attempt at drafting, led by a Constitutional Convention with a majority of independents and left-wing sectors, resulted in a proposal that some described as "refoundational." In September 2022, this proposal was resoundingly rejected at the polls by 62% of voters.

A second process was then opened, this time with a Constitutional Council dominated by right-wing forces. The proposal emanating from this body, however, also met with public rejection. In December 2023, more than 55% of Chileans voted "Against," many arguing that the proposed text was even more conservative than the current Constitution.

Several factors came together to explain these two consecutive failures:

* Unmet Social Demands: One of the main motivations for the social uprising was the need to profoundly reform the health, education, and pension systems, where the 1980 Constitution enshrines a subsidiary role for the State. According to critics, neither of the two constitutional proposals managed to offer satisfactory and consensual solutions to these structural demands.

* Lack of Cross-Cutting Agreements: Political polarization was an insurmountable obstacle. In the first process, right-wing sectors felt marginalized and excluded from key decisions. In the second, it was the left that denounced a similar situation. This inability to build bridges and reach broad agreements undermined the legitimacy of both proposals.

* Disinterest and Citizen Disaffection: After the first rejection, a sense of disappointment and fatigue spread among a significant portion of the population. Polls showed that more than a third of voters expressed little or no interest in the second constitutional process. Faith that a new constitution would solve the country's problems gradually faded.

* Priority Citizen Concerns: While the constitutional debate dominated political attention, other citizen concerns, such as rising crime (90.6% of the population perceived an increase, according to surveys at the time), took center stage on the public agenda, diminishing the urgency of constitutional change for many.

With these results, the Political Constitution of the Republic of Chile, promulgated in 1980 during the military regime, remains the fundamental law of the country. It is crucial to remember that this text is not the same as the one originally imposed; it has undergone numerous significant reforms since the return to democracy in 1990, one of the most important being that of 2005 under the government of Ricardo Lagos.

However, its origin remains a point of controversy and a symbol for those who see it as an authoritarian legacy that perpetuates inequalities.

* «This thinking was reflected in the 2019 protests, where many demonstrators argued that they would not stop until a new Constitution was created, thereby ending Pinochet's legacy.» (Source: BBC News Mundo).

Most political actors and analysts agree that, with this second rejection, the constitutional process as such has come to an end, at least in the short and medium term. President Gabriel Boric, who had actively supported the constitutional change, acknowledged the results and called for national unity.

Now, the focus shifts to the political system's ability to channel citizen demands through ordinary legislation and possible new partial reforms to the current Constitution. The Constitutional Court, for its part, will continue to play its role in interpreting and supervising the constitutionality of laws.

The Chilean public's double "no" to the proposals for a new Constitution reveals a deep fatigue with processes seeking radical structural transformations and, simultaneously, a serious challenge to the political class for its inability to generate broad consensus on issues that are fundamental to the country. Despite the initial overwhelming support for constitutional change expressed in 2020, Chilean society seems to have prioritized, at decisive moments, the pursuit of stability and the resolution of more immediate and tangible problems, such as security and the economy, over constitutional changes that were perceived, in both cases, as excessively polarizing or insufficient to meet the expectations generated.

This outcome could lead Chile toward a period that some analysts call a "reformist status quo." In this scenario, the social and economic transformations that were strongly demanded during the 2019 social unrest would not be pursued through a complete replacement of the Magna Carta, but rather through ordinary legislation and the introduction of partial and specific reforms to the 1980 Constitution. However, this path is not without challenges. If the reforms implemented under the current constitutional framework fail to effectively address the root causes of inequality and distrust in institutions, the social unrest that gave rise to the constituent process could remain latent, with the risk of future crises. The origin of the Constitution, even if its content has been modified, will continue to be a point of symbolic and political friction in the Chilean debate.