• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,171
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

Indeed, one of many victims of the American Empire, but hopefully this paves a path forward to a new tomorrow.



salvador-allende-1_4030747-Cropped.jpg


Allende would be proud.
 

Deleted member 70788

Jun 2, 2020
9,620
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.
 

Deleted member 4783

Oct 25, 2017
4,531
The ammount of salty/ignorant right wingers is FUCKING DELICIOUS.

Cry more
 

Serpens007

Well, Tosca isn't for everyone
Moderator
Oct 31, 2017
8,129
Chile
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.

Next step is justice for the fallen.

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.

Lots of hope! Taking out Trump will also set a precedent for the rest of the world,
 

Blue for Sale

Member
Sep 7, 2018
109
I was looking for this threat yesterday.

It was a long time coming and it's finally here.

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.

Yeah, at least those that are still shouting chilezuela are consistent, but you could see from a mile away most of them would jump ship as soon as they realized they were gonna lose. I truly despise all of them.

Apuesto que se van a hacer los desentendidos con todo lo malo que han hecho.
 

AuthenticM

Son Altesse Sérénissime
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
30,079
This is great!

So I presume that the party that will draft the new Constitution is left-leaning?
 

Toxi

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
17,550
I'm hoping this and Bolivia mark an ongoing trend of casting off the chains of dictatorship, neoliberal economics, and US imperialism in South America.
 

Camwi

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
6,375
Good for them. All the credit in the world to the people who gave their lives and their health for this.
 

Shal

Member
Oct 27, 2017
296
This is great!

So I presume that the party that will draft the new Constitution is left-leaning?

Not necessarily. The new Constitution will be written by democracy elected people in an assembly that will be formed some months in the future, so the end result will still be decided by who are the people that ends up being elected for this and can still bites us in the ass if a combination of wrong people is chosen.

The assembly will have 155 people elected democratically. The good thing is anyone can run for a seat in there, the bad is that marketing is a real thing as we all know, so wealthier people might have a better chance at getting a seat in there, and thus rigging everything for their own interests.

In the worst case scenario we might end up with a worse constitution than the one we had, although it would be highly unlikely since the previous one was made in dictatorship by a military figure (with influence of the US back then). Well worst case scenario it would at least be made in democracy lol.
 

Altazor

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,151
Chile
This is great!

So I presume that the party that will draft the new Constitution is left-leaning?

The *idea* is that it doesn't belong to a single party - the assembly that is elected should be as diverse as possible. The reality, however, is that the current political class (especially the right and the "center-left" parties that formed the coalition government right after Pinochet) are trying their hardest to impede independents and NGO/grassroots representatives to run for said assembly. They want to control how it's formed, obviously, because they're afraid.
 

SolarPowered

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,211
Congrats to the Chilean people. Bolivia and Chile out there smashing neoliberalism right in it's smarmy mouth. The US and UK could stand to learn a little in that regard. I'll likely die before ever seeing another constitutional amendment, but Chile's people are drafting a whole new constitution like Gangstas without a single lawmaker being involved.
 

Davilmar

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,265
Incredible for both Chile and Bolivia, and I am incredibly proud. I just want to emphasize that new constitution by itself does not protect a people or the nation against dictatorship. People have to continually be vigilant.
 

Deleted member 7130

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,685
¡Felicidades, compañeros Chilenos! Fuera con el modelo neoliberal

Great to have LatAm exercise some self autonomy lead by the people in peace wherever possible.
 

demana

Member
Oct 27, 2017
172
Can anyone give or link to a summary of the problems with the prior constitution? Thanks!
 

Dever

Member
Dec 25, 2019
5,347
So in practice, what's the change? How will the new constitution differ from the old one?
 

Altazor

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,151
Chile
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.
 

demana

Member
Oct 27, 2017
172
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.

Thanks for the insight, really helpful for an outsider like me!
 

Macam

Member
Nov 8, 2018
1,465
Can anyone give or link to a summary of the problems with the prior constitution? Thanks!

From The Economist:

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.