The president of the Constitutional Council of Chile, Beatriz Hevia, spoke with EL TIEMPO after the final vote on the proposal for a new Magna Carta, a text that President Gabriel Boric will receive next Tuesday and Electoral campaigns will begin for the exit plebiscite scheduled for next December 17.
(Also read: How was the proposal for a new Constitution that Chileans will vote on in December?)
The long constitutional process that Chile faced after the victory of the “Rejection” option in the plebiscite of September 4, 2022, reached its final stretch this week after approval, by 33 votes in favor and 17 against, of the new Magna Carta proposal that must be submitted to a plebiscite on December 17.
After four months of work, the Constitutional Council, led by the right-wing Republican party, and after the respective adjustments of the Commission of experts, the body in charge of drafting that gave the green light to a text of 17 chapters and 216 articles, this It will be delivered next Tuesday to President Gabriel Boric.
(Also read: Proposal for a new Constitution was ready to be voted on in Chile)
A little more than a month before the elections, where Chileans will have to choose between the options For and Against the new Magna Carta project, EL TIEMPO spoke with the president of the Constitutional Council of Chile, Beatriz Hevia, about the progress and challenges of this process that concluded in the midst of an atmosphere of little enthusiasm among the population and broad political polarization.
What was the process of writing the new constitution in Chile like?
We add up to four months of work, carried out in the Constitutional Council. We started with a draft, proposed by experts nominated by Congress, and our task was to incorporate the citizen perspective into this draft. That was the task we carried out over the last four months after studying it, reviewing it, talking between the different sectors and groups, to finally achieve a text that was approved by the plenary session of the Constitutional Council.
Like last year’s failed process, this one has also been surrounded by controversy due to accusations that sectors of the Republican Party and other right-wing parties wanted to impose their criteria, being the majority. What does he respond to this?
I believe that the current process could not be further from the old process experienced in Chile, both in form and substance. Here it is not the responsibility of anyone exclusively, but rather it is the work of all of us who have been involved in this process to mark a seal of serious, sober and responsible work.
Additionally, it differs greatly from what the previous process was because the doors have always been open for conversations between all sectors, we have tried to build as many agreements as possible.
Of course, it is true, one does not always achieve all agreements, especially because we have sectors with very different visions in Chile. But, the most relevant thing is that, in fact, we did not decide to follow the refoundation path, so the Magna Carta text that we have constructed seeks to open the doors to a new period of stability in Chile, which allows us to recover progress, both social and economic, which we have been losing and which is key to social well-being.
One of the issues that has caused the most controversy has to do with the norm that protects the life of the unborn, which is seen, by some sectors, as a setback against a right already won, which is abortion on three grounds. How do you see it?
I believe that we must take the full context of what has happened with the protection of life in this constitutional process. Chile today has a constitution that enshrines the protection of the life of the unborn. In the previous Magna Carta process, it was intended to abolish that completely, In fact, the doors were opened to free abortion in all its stages since the experts’ draft did not include any reference to this matter.
From the Constitutional Council, what we tried to do was take charge of that void by incorporating the protection of life that our current Constitution already contains, without entering into other debates, without endangering any other type of norm, because they are debates that correspond to others. spaces and not to the Constitutional Council.
Polls indicate that, facing the December plebiscite, the majority of the population would not approve the new constituent project. How do you see it within the Constitutional Council?
Indeed, the previous process caused a lot of frustration, a lot of anger, a lot of hopelessness among citizens. And it is inevitable that the process we are experiencing today carries that backpack. However, we are also aware that if these same surveys review what citizens think regarding additions that have been made to the text, there is support for these modifications.
What we think is important between now and December is that citizens inform themselves. I, in the previous process, voted against, therefore, I believe that all the alternatives are legitimate. For me, what is relevant is that citizens know the text that is proposed for voting and make an informed and well-founded decision regarding the plebiscite on December 17.
(You may be interested in: ‘We talked about energy transition and migration,’ says Boric after meeting with Petro)
It is evident that the constitutional process does not arouse the same interest that it initially had after the social outbreak of 2019. Is there any strategy to get people excited to vote in the plebiscite?
I believe that our task is precisely to be able to give people a good constitutional text.l. From the first draft that the experts delivered, to the work that the Constitutional Council has done, and the stages that come forward, I see it as a continuous process of improvements to deliver the best possible text by December 17.
And I think that the task of everyone, not only the counselors, but other political actors, is to go out and disseminate the content. Citizens need to recover security and certainties and, for that, we also need to close the constitutional chapter.
Has Gabriel Boric’s government supported this constitutional process with the same enthusiasm as it did when it was led by the left?
Beyond that, what I hope is that the Government is open to informing, to making material available to citizens so that it can reach everyone. It seems to me that this role is very important to be able to rescue.
Do you think that the current text responds to security, one of the main urgencies of Chileans?
It is a constitutional text that takes charge of the Chilean constitutional tradition, that takes charge of today’s Chile, that tries to provide tools to respond to problems and to the Legislature. My job and that of the 22 councilors who represent the Republican party is to be able to propose a good constitutional text that hopefully makes sense to Chileans and is approved in the plebiscite on December 17.
ANDREA AGUILAR
FOR THE TIME
CHILI
More news at eltiempo.com
#Editors #Magna #Carta #proposal #Chile #seek #period #stability