It is a matter of observing the world, as well as our own country, to conclude that democracies are rarely achieved and offer capable and beneficial rulers. Since ancient times, the regimes that were considered as such were not even remotely so, since women and slaves, i.e., the majorities, were denied all their rights as citizens.
It is true that with the election of the Constituent Convention we Chileans have experienced the most democratic episode in our history, which is especially important if one considers that this process contemplated, for the first time, parity between men and women, as well as ensuring the election of ethnic minorities. Nevertheless, it is inevitable that among the 155 elected there will be people who are not qualified to undertake such a complex task, just as some liars and opportunists can already be observed among those elected. We congratulate ourselves, by the way, for this group of well-qualified and willing people, even if this does not always guarantee their probity or ideological soundness.
The conception and drafting of a Magna Carta could be more expeditious if this task were to fall to a limited number of constituents, but this could lead to the same biases and limitations that all our institutional arrangements of the past have demonstrated. At present, there are a number of specialists among the Convention’s members, but it is also clear that there are others who pursued their election more to secure a livelihood or to use the position as a stepping stone to higher positions in our politics.
What seems undeniable is that the new constitution is not among the priorities of the people and their citizens. Derived from social protest, as almost everyone acknowledges, the Convention is more the child of demands for social justice and equity, as well as the search for a more decent pension system than the one that still governs us. Admittedly, many were late to understand that, without a democratic system, it may be very difficult or almost impossible to distribute our wealth more equitably and to narrow the deep gaps that still exist between men and women, rich and poor, educated and ignorant, santiaguinos and provincianos and other realities that make us live in such a heterogeneous and conflicted country. In which great opportunities for some and unacceptable shortages for the great majority are enshrined.
In this way, it is understood that it will be very difficult to reach a consensus on a new constitutional text. Even more so if one considers the traps deliberately set for this process, such as the two-thirds quorum imposed to approve any new precept that does not repeat what already existed in the text bequeathed by Pinochet. Or the same demand to finally hold a citizens’ referendum, where more tensions and stumbling blocks could arise according to the well-known partisan interests and bad practices. Or if we also consider that more urgent social demands will be imposed after the prolonged health emergency that has affected us.
In these current drawbacks, as in those that may arise in the future, lies the choice of those who prefer to continue with the 1980 Constitution, in the certainty that their interests and the unequal society would be better safeguarded there. Although the sectors most reluctant to change did not even get a third of the votes, other constituents are already beginning to opt for the continuity of the current institutional system, especially after such a serious and flagrant deception as that committed by a member of the People’s List who invented a serious illness in order to win votes. To this has been added the desertion of a number of militants from this new popular expression that emerged from these elections. It is also evident that differences have begun to proliferate among the copious and equivocal leftist expressions, which seem to be triggered by the presidential contest in progress and not necessarily by the existence of alternative macro visions.
It is regrettable that before entering into the analysis and discussion of the new constitutional proposal, differences that could become insurmountable were already being expressed in the definition of the Convention’s Rules of Procedure. It is not that we think that the work of this body should be absent of ideological conflicts, but it is necessary to point out the conduct and lack of responsibility of the media that have been deliberately stimulating the divergences between the constitutionalists, renouncing to fulfil such a decisive task as that of providing us with a Fundamental Charter that is finally widely legitimised and capable of being prolonged in time.
It is indeed regrettable that this whole constitutional process lacks the proper support of the media, which are called upon to be the great shapers of public opinion. It has also been possible to verify the dismal disposition of Sebastián Piñera and La Moneda, evidently reluctant to the possibility of the future institutional order acquiring genuinely democratic edges. The evidence is compelling in this respect, such as the Head of State’s inopportune reproach of isolated opinions or outbursts coming from within the Convention, which in no case represent the majority opinion of its members. Nor would they merit the attention of a serious ruler.
On the contrary, what we can observe from the mainstream media is that they have not been up to the task, nor are they really interested in the success of the Constituent Convention. Rather, they are determined that this initiative should be aborted and serve as a stimulus and excuse to perpetuate the model of society they believe in and defend in their editorial line.
This is not so strange if we consider that they operate with the same frivolity in everything. On the occasion of the Fiestas Patrias, for example, we have all seen that the main interest of the big television stations was to induce the people to all sorts of excesses, especially the consumption of junk food and excessive alcoholic intake, assuming that these harmful habits are the essence of our idiosyncrasy, tradition and personality. Very far, of course, from being interested in educating or enlightening the population on the correct meaning of 18 September 1810, an important anniversary, as we know, but one on which our National Independence was not really consummated. Insisting, moreover, on his mendacious determination to associate these festivities with the Military Parade, an archaic, onerous and even ridiculous rite in our days. Chile in no way owes its sovereignty and prosperity to the uniformed institutions, as it would be a matter of remembering that string of conspiracies, massacres and betrayals carried out by its troops against their own homeland.
