Álvaro Elizalde (Talca, 52 years old) has been president of the Chilean Senate for six months. After the triumph of the rejection of the new Constitution in the referendum on September 4, he has in his hands the responsibility of negotiating with all the political forces in Congress the continuity of the constitutional process. He attributes the defeat of approval to “the lack of dialogue to incorporate different views” and a certain “paternalistic tone” in the text. The socialist leader says that he has no doubt that the president, Gabriel Boric, will put his signature on a new constitution before finishing his mandate in 2026.
Ask. Why did you win the rejection in Chile?
Response. The Convention elaborated a text and consulted if it satisfied the expectations of the citizenship and the answer was categorically against. It is necessary to analyze what the reasons were. There was a lack of willingness to dialogue to incorporate different views, which would allow a base of support for the text. There was also a series of matters that generated fear and doubts in sectors of Chilean society.
P. And what were those subjects?
R. The conduct of the conventional, the way in which the debates were developed, even certain picturesque episodes generated a blanket of doubt regarding the quality of the work. And that gave connotation to certain words or definitions beyond what had really been established. Additionally, conservative sectors used this as a campaign tool. The most dispossessed sectors voted rejection. The middle and upper middle sectors had greater support proportional to approval, which gives a certain paternalistic logic to the text.
P. What do you mean by “paternalistic”?
R. The communes with the largest indigenous population had a significant level of support for the rejection and the communes where there is more poverty as well. The question is whether that sector of society was listened to in order to capture those demands in the text, or rather an elite tried to interpret what the people wanted or what the indigenous peoples wanted. In any case, there are remarkable things in the text.
P. For example?
R. Parity and the social and democratic state of law.
P. The process has been left in the hands of Congress. What’s next now?
R. From a formal point of view, the current Constitution is still in force, but there is a citizen mandate to replace it. The rejection campaign consisted of a commitment to advance towards a new Constitution that was expressed in the slogan ‘neither one nor the other’. Now it is up to Congress to approve a constitutional reform that enables the constitutional process to continue. The debate has been generated regarding the most suitable mechanism.
P. And what do you consider that mechanism to be?
R. For the new text to have legitimacy, the voice of the people must be respected and heard. And we must have an inclusive dialogue to incorporate different perspectives, because a Constitution is a basic law that requires a broad level of support in the constituent body, but above all in society.
P. What criticizes the current Constitution?
R. That it was conceived under an ideology that declares the ideas of an important part of society unconstitutional. The social democratic reforms promoted by Michelle Bachelet were declared unconstitutional. Despite the 2005 reform promoted by President Ricardo Lagos, it is still not fully democratic. There is a conceptual framework that enshrines this vision of the subsidiary State and the neoliberal logic. They are legitimate ideas, but they cannot be imposed through the Constitution.
P. Should the discussions start from a blank page or from an already written text?
R. The blank sheet is fundamental, it implies that everything that is going to be incorporated into the Constitution must have the necessary agreement for it to be incorporated. If there is no blank page, one starts from a previously imposed text and the quorum is to reform or eliminate what that text says. What text are we going to use? The current norm? Another thing is that the constitutional debate should be based on inputs such as previous constitutions, the Chilean constitutional trajectory or the debate that took place within the Convention.
P. What should be the role of the Boric Government in the process?
R. The president has a clear commitment to changing the Constitution, it is part of his DNA. Now, the Government has made the decision to accompany this process, but placing the responsibility of reaching an agreement on Congress. The current Constitution is legally in force, but it is politically and socially repealed.
P. Why has the right agreed to draft a new Constitution?
R. There are sectors of the right, younger, who have more of a democratic vocation, and who even risked it entirely with the vote for approval in the first plebiscite. I hope that these theses prevail, because that will facilitate an understanding. The crisis of the outbreak has not been overcome, if we do not make the changes in time we are going to put social peace at risk in the long term.
P. Aren’t you afraid that the right wants to assert the overwhelming triumph of rejection in the negotiations?
R. When the explosion occurred, many said ‘we didn’t see it coming’. It would be a mistake to go now to ‘nothing has happened here’. There are also sectors of the right that are aware that this time a response must be given that allows for changes. It would be a mistake to interpret the 62% rejection as a vote to the right.
P. What reading do you make of the new student demonstrations?
R. It is early to know if we are in a situation similar to that of 2019 or not. One could say that now the picture is different, but you have to be vigilant and you don’t have to tempt fate.
P. Will Boric be able to sign a new Constitution before the change of Government, in 2026?
R. Of that I have no doubt. The need for the process to conclude sufficiently far from the municipal elections, which are one year before the presidential ones, has been put on the table. In general, all the sectors want to distance the work from the electoral processes.
P. How will the Government advance in its reforms while living with the constituent process?
R. President Boric made the decision to file the process in Congress and thus concentrate on the challenges it faces. He has to address two emergencies: the economic situation and its inflationary picture and the public security situation. The president is convinced that the constituent process is necessary, but his greatest effort will be in governing.
P. Is this government more centrist than the one you assumed?
R. It is a government that maintains its transformative density. The decisions that the president has adopted are to maintain that density, but on the basis of the real Chile. Those who have a radical position are wrong, because that rhetoric does not translate into concrete changes.
P. How would you describe these first six months of government? How learning?
R. There is a new generation that has come to refresh the way of doing politics and underestimated the task of the previous generation. Faced with the challenge of governing, he has learned very quickly. Boric is characterized by being very thoughtful and his intellectual curiosity leads him to always ask who he thinks differently than his reasons.
P. The Colombian president, Gustavo Petro, said that with the victory of the rejection “Pinochet revived”. What do you think?
R. Petro does not know the Chilean reality. Chileans have already spoken out against Pinochet’s Constitution and now against the text proposed by the Convention. He does not take into account how difficult it has been to restore democracy in our country. The Pinochet factor is a minority in Chilean society.
Subscribe here to newsletter of EL PAÍS America and receive all the informative keys of the current situation in the region.
#Álvaro #Elizalde #current #Constitution #force #Chile #politically #socially #repealed