Will the referendum result make a difference in the lives of Chileans?

Guy Burton


People during the referendum to decide whether the country should replace its 40-year-old constitution, Chile, October 25, 2020. /Getty Images

Editor's note: Guy Burton is an adjunct professor at Vesalius College, Brussels. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The result of the constitutional referendum in Chile on Sunday was striking. More than three-quarters of voters backed the call for constitutional change. A majority of voters also preferred to have the new constitution drafted by an entirely elected constitutional assembly rather than one that was half elected and half appointed by congress.

But will the result make a substantial difference in the lives of Chileans? That is a key question that will need to be answered as the next stage unfolds. Elections for the constituent assembly are expected to take place by April next year and those elected will have a year to put together a text which will then go to the electorate in April 2022.

A first test will be who the candidates will be. Will it be regular and established politicians who take part or a new and different group of citizens? Here, the experience of other constituent assemblies in Latin America may be a guide, including in Venezuela in 1999, Bolivia in 2006 and Ecuador in 2007.

In all three countries, the assemblies were proposed by recently elected presidents, who saw their support transfer to a majority share of the vote. That made for constitutional texts which were broadly in line with the governments of the day.

By contrast, it is less clear that this will be the case in Chile. The constituent assembly elections in April 2021 will take before the next presidential and parliamentary elections in November. Consequently, rather than a new president lending his or her aura to the constituent assembly elections, Chile's next president may owe much to the wrangling in the assembly and how the public perceives it.

Just as it remains uncertain who will deliberate over the new constitution, it is also difficult to know how the new document can best reflect public opinion. Here it is useful to set Chile's current constitution and public sentiment in context.

Sunday's referendum result marks the culmination of a decades-long campaign by many in Chile, especially for those on the political left. Chile's current constitution was written in 1980 during General Augusto Pinochet's military dictatorship, which overthrew the Socialist president, Salvador Allende, seven years earlier.

The 1980 constitution enshrined the authoritarian bent of the Pinochet regime. It granted strong powers to the president and limited ones for congress and the military had the right to appoint nine senators. The constitution also demonstrated a strong bias in favor of markets, limiting the role of the state and protecting private property.

Given its origin, the 1980 constitution acquired totemic status for many, who saw it as illegitimate. Although opposition to the constitution persisted, the center-left Concertación governments which ran Chile between 1990 and 2010 were able to rub away its worst excesses.

People gather to celebrate the victory of the referendum, in Santiago, Chile, October 25, 2020. /Getty Images


A raft of constitutional amendments was passed after 2000 and the authoritarian nature of the constitution was undermined by the application of democratic rule and government-opposition give and take.

At the same time, the Concertación governments presided over a period of marked economic growth and development in Chile. Both the country and its citizens grew richer and inequality fell, helped in part by some of the government's redistributive measures.

But these advances did not prove enough for many Chileans. Within Latin America, Chile remained more unequal than many and especially so when compared to other wealthier and industrialized countries.

For many Chileans, the burden was felt in the high and growing cost of living. The limited role of the state meant that many had to pay for their children's education or provide for their own healthcare and pensions.

Then, last October, the proposed increase in public transport fares sparked complaints among students which captured wider public frustration and resentment, leading to even larger public protests. In response, the government proposed a constitutional referendum as a way forward. Elections were due to be held in April but were pushed back six months, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic and movement restrictions.

While Chile's political class has been given a clear steer that the public wants change, it is not clear what that will mean in practice. It will be a challenge to express public frustration and dissatisfaction in what is meant to be a baseline document.

How should Chileans' struggle with the high cost of living and perceived inequality be captured? Should it be captured in a commitment to raising the minimum wage or enabling the state to engage in productive activity? Does it mean the provision of targeted state subsidies or the broader allocation of public funds for certain public services?

Moreover, is a constitution the most appropriate means to capture those demands? By their very nature, constitutions are designed to be documents that are hard to change. If these commitments are made constitutional, how much more difficult will it be to amend them should the country's social and economic circumstances change? Alternately, should demands like these not be debated and introduced through ordinary legislation?

Undoubtedly, some of these issues will be addressed in the coming months. One of the first items that the new constituent assembly will have to set for itself is the subjects it can cover and the procedures to allow for the incorporation of a commitment into the text.

For now though, those details are for another day while a majority of Chileans celebrate a poll result which expresses an end to business as usual.