Love to see it. Solidarity with our Chilean comrades as they cast off the chains of their oppression.
Now and forever.
Now and forever.
God that nobel peace prize is a freaking joke.
Fantastic news though most people here won't understand how significant this is or appreciate the immense price Chile's people paid to get here
Congrats to Chile! I got to visit last year and fell in love with your country. I have been following all the big political new I am able and was just taking to this with a couple my wife and I became good friend with while there. We did a zoom chat and she was telling me all about this vote a week ago.
So happy for you all. Send your energy up fm here for us next week.
Funniest part: Right wingers and government saying that this is victory represents them because they also want something better for Chile! While there are right wingers that realized this was needed, I can't stop laughing at how fake most of them feel, even more now.
This is great!
So I presume that the party that will draft the new Constitution is left-leaning?
Some stuff will be left-leaning, yes. Other will be right-leaning.This is great!
So I presume that the party that will draft the new Constitution is left-leaning?
This is great!
So I presume that the party that will draft the new Constitution is left-leaning?
Can anyone give or link to a summary of the problems with the prior constitution? Thanks!
First - it was formulated and drafted by the Dictatorship and that alone makes it illegitimate. Even though it has seen a small number of reforms (the last "major" one in 2005), it's -at its core- the same constitution as it was in 1980, with the same pillars.
It's essentially a neoliberal think-tank's wet dream. It essentially relegates the State as a 'mere' guarantor (or, even worse, only a watchman) of rights instead of a promoter. It's what's called "subsidiary state" - it only appears where the private sector cannot reach (and won't reach). The most egregious example is that the current Constitution does not guarantee a right to healthcare. It guarantees the right to access either a private or public provider of healthcare which is not the same thing even if it appears so at first glance. The right to property (and property rights) are the core of the document - private property and entrepeneurship at the cost of social rights.
Also - it has a lot of traps. There's basically no other way to call them. They're institutional mechanisms that allow for the political right, even in a minority position in Congress, to hold enormous power. And yes, it absolutely benefits the right because the Constitution was written (mostly) by a hardcore right-winger who knew exactly he was doing: he said the idea was to make "the 'other side' to play by 'your' rules, because you're setting the boundaries and they'd realize that taking a different course of action would be extremely costly". This translates to an election system (now thankfully abolished) that almost unfailingly guaranteed the right wing to have at least one congressman elected in *every* election (the gist of it was: you run in pairs for each coalition -left and right- and you needed to double the other pair's results for your pair to get elected. If you didn't double, then the best result from your pair and the best result from the opposite pair get elected. This meant almost *every* time one from the left and one from the right get elected, even if the right-wing one had a shockingly low amount of votes). Another big trap is the existence of "supermajorities" - quora that need to be reached when passing certain laws or trying to reform the same constitution. For example, certain laws require majority of 4/7 of the current diputados and senadores (essentially 57% of each chamber). God forbid you try to reform the Constitution by following the Constitution's own rules: you need a 2/3 quorum.
And the last great big trap: the current Constitutional Tribunal which -admittedly- wasn't in the Constitution drafted by the Dictatorship... or at least, it wasn't in its current design and function. That was the result of the 2005 reform. The idea of a special tribunal having the last word over which law abides by the Constitution and which doesn't isn't a far fetched one, but the implementation of our own CT leaves a lot to be desired. Picture the US' Supreme Court composition and the nominees over RBG's death, that whole shitshow? Basically a small-scale version - our Constitutional Tribunal can be subject (in terms of picks) to the current government's picks, and they've turned into a "third chamber" that can veto laws that somehow have passed those ridiculous majorities I've already mentioned. It only takes a complaint from a minority congressman and the whole thing goes to the CT, which has a composition that skews towards the same ideology of said congressman and, voila! Law is struck down before it passes, even if most agreed on it.
That's a very hurried summary. And I'm sure you can find a paper that explains it better, but I hope I've made the issues a bit clearer.
Can anyone give or link to a summary of the problems with the prior constitution? Thanks!
The problems with the current constitution start with its origins. Adopted in 1980, it is the work of the regime led by Augusto Pinochet, a despot who ruled until 1990. Although it acknowledged basic freedoms, a state of emergency suspended these until the regime's final days. Under the influence of pro-market economists educated at the University of Chicago, it not only protected the private sector but gave it a big role in providing public services. "It is the one that most favours the private sector in the world," says Mr Couso.
Chile prospered under Pinochet's charter, which later governments amended dozens of times. Since 1990 the economy has grown rapidly, poverty has fallen sharply and politics have been stable. But the anger that flared last year has been building for more than a decade. Chileans fume about two-tier health care, which serves the rich better than ordinary folk; about the poor quality of state schools; and about privately managed pensions, which pay out less than many people expected.
Chileans largely blame the constitution. By giving citizens a choice of contributing towards the public health-care system or a private one, the charter makes it hard for the state to set up a taxpayer-financed health-care system like Britain's nhs. When a left-leaning government sought to strengthen the consumer-protection agency, by allowing it to fine companies, the Constitutional Tribunal overruled it. The court might also strike down any attempt to replace privately managed pensions as an infringement of the right to choose between public and private systems. Changes to laws on education, policing, mining and elections require four-sevenths majorities in both houses of Congress.
In critics' eyes the constitution is not just "neoliberal" but "hyperpresidential". It gives the president the power to dictate which bills get priority in Congress. Members may not propose tax or spending bills. Regions cannot raise their own revenues, which concentrates power in Santiago. The constitution is "designed to neutralise democratic politics", says Fernando Atria, a legal scholar at the University of Chile and head of Common Force, part of the left-wing Broad Front alliance.