Chile's govt in shock loss as voters pick independents to draft constitution

[Jimmy Higgins]

Could Chile show the United States how to rebuild its democracy? | Tony Karon | The Guardian - 2021 Dec 23
"The US once helped destroy Chilean democracy. Now, a constitutional reform movement in Chile could teach the US how to fix its own"

Chile always gave the lie to the cold war claim that the United States stood for democracy. When its voters in 1970 showed the temerity (“irresponsibility”, Henry Kissinger called it) to elect socialist Salvador Allende as president, Washington helped orchestrate the coup that toppled him, and backed the resulting dictatorship.

It seems those “irresponsible” Chilean voters are at it again – on Sunday, they elected leftist Gabriel Boric as president by a 12-point margin, on the back of a campaign for a new constitution. But if Chilean democracy seems on the road to recovery from its Washington-backed disfiguration, prospects for democracy in the United States look rather bleak.

Then the problems that the US faces, like unbalanced sizes of states and the Senate and the Electoral College, and the difficulty of amending the US Constitution.

Boric is a product of a student rebellion a decade ago that fed into a broader social justice movement focused on issues ranging from austerity, a failing social safety net, healthcare and economic inequality to gender violence and Indigenous rights. While even center-left governments were stymied from delivering on voter expectations, many in this parliament of the streets recognized that their grievances were products of the democracy deficit built into the dictatorship’s 1980 constitution to ensure continuity of its economic model.

Although it allowed Chileans to elect their president and lower house of parliament, that constitution built in minority vetoes, such as appointing one-third of senators and much of the judiciary, as failsafe mechanisms to prevent democratically elected politicians from enacting the systemic changes demanded by voters. Thus the emergence of a democracy movement based outside formal political parties, which in late 2019 won a referendum to have a new constitution democratically drafted. That movement’s energy also propelled Boric to power.

Actually, the undemocratic "failsafe" mechanisms had already been removed in previous constitutional amendments, which were made in accordance to the constitution. For example, the senate is elected democratically (see e.g. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Chile_2015.pdf?lang=en ).

This new constitution is going to be made in violation of amendment rules, which damages Chile's reputation and institutional instability. That was a big mistake, regardless of the merits of the new constitution (on that note, I hope I'm wrong, but I expect the new constitution to be pretty bad due to left-wing ideology built into it; that is another matter, though). That was not necessary. They could have amended the constitution without violating it. They could have even done it by referendum - just by previously amended the procedure for constitutional amendments. Now it's a mess.

Left-wing? Yeah, maybe they should re-Pinochet Chile to fix that.

Why would you say that? Your sarcasm seems so out of place, like an accusation. Pinochet was a murderous right-wing dictator, okay?
And I expect the new constitution to be pretty bad due to the left-wing ideology that will likely be built into it.

Yup, let's murder the folk musicians to prevent that left-wing ideology.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Could Chile show the United States how to rebuild its democracy? | Tony Karon | The Guardian - 2021 Dec 23
"The US once helped destroy Chilean democracy. Now, a constitutional reform movement in Chile could teach the US how to fix its own"

Chile always gave the lie to the cold war claim that the United States stood for democracy. When its voters in 1970 showed the temerity (“irresponsibility”, Henry Kissinger called it) to elect socialist Salvador Allende as president, Washington helped orchestrate the coup that toppled him, and backed the resulting dictatorship.

It seems those “irresponsible” Chilean voters are at it again – on Sunday, they elected leftist Gabriel Boric as president by a 12-point margin, on the back of a campaign for a new constitution. But if Chilean democracy seems on the road to recovery from its Washington-backed disfiguration, prospects for democracy in the United States look rather bleak.

Then the problems that the US faces, like unbalanced sizes of states and the Senate and the Electoral College, and the difficulty of amending the US Constitution.

Boric is a product of a student rebellion a decade ago that fed into a broader social justice movement focused on issues ranging from austerity, a failing social safety net, healthcare and economic inequality to gender violence and Indigenous rights. While even center-left governments were stymied from delivering on voter expectations, many in this parliament of the streets recognized that their grievances were products of the democracy deficit built into the dictatorship’s 1980 constitution to ensure continuity of its economic model.

Although it allowed Chileans to elect their president and lower house of parliament, that constitution built in minority vetoes, such as appointing one-third of senators and much of the judiciary, as failsafe mechanisms to prevent democratically elected politicians from enacting the systemic changes demanded by voters. Thus the emergence of a democracy movement based outside formal political parties, which in late 2019 won a referendum to have a new constitution democratically drafted. That movement’s energy also propelled Boric to power.

Actually, the undemocratic "failsafe" mechanisms had already been removed in previous constitutional amendments, which were made in accordance to the constitution. For example, the senate is elected democratically (see e.g. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Chile_2015.pdf?lang=en ).

This new constitution is going to be made in violation of amendment rules, which damages Chile's reputation and institutional instability. That was a big mistake, regardless of the merits of the new constitution (on that note, I hope I'm wrong, but I expect the new constitution to be pretty bad due to left-wing ideology built into it; that is another matter, though). That was not necessary. They could have amended the constitution without violating it. They could have even done it by referendum - just by previously amended the procedure for constitutional amendments. Now it's a mess.

Left-wing? Yeah, maybe they should re-Pinochet Chile to fix that.

Why would you say that? Your sarcasm seems so out of place, like an accusation. Pinochet was a murderous right-wing dictator, okay?
And I expect the new constitution to be pretty bad due to the left-wing ideology that will likely be built into it.

Yup, let's murder the folk musicians to prevent that left-wing ideology.

What are you talking about? I never advocated murdering anyone. Which musicians are you talking about?
I'm saying that the new constitution will probably be bad. And the procedure to make it is already bad because it's unconstitutional, even if the end result happens to be surprisingly good.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

New proposals will require two-thirds approval and without a third of the delegates, the government will struggle to block radical changes to the constitution unless it can forge new alliances.

So the new socialist ruler of Chile (Allende 2.0?) wants to impose "radical changes" to the constitution?
That's not going to end well ...

I doesn't matter what his politics are. Constitutions should not be rewritten. We do it the right way--amendments that require supermajorites to pass.

Yes, that is another one of my points. The procedure is wrong too. It's damaging Chile's international image, and further undermining the rule of law domestically.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

New proposals will require two-thirds approval and without a third of the delegates, the government will struggle to block radical changes to the constitution unless it can forge new alliances.

So the new socialist ruler of Chile (Allende 2.0?) wants to impose "radical changes" to the constitution?
That's not going to end well ...

I doesn't matter what his politics are. Constitutions should not be rewritten. We do it the right way--amendments that require supermajorites to pass.

Don't look up.

What do you mean by that? Any changes that have political support could have been passed without violating the constitution. The content I believe will be pretty bad, but that aside, the procedure is bad independently of the content.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

New proposals will require two-thirds approval and without a third of the delegates, the government will struggle to block radical changes to the constitution unless it can forge new alliances.

So the new socialist ruler of Chile (Allende 2.0?) wants to impose "radical changes" to the constitution?
That's not going to end well ...

Actually, the people who want to impose radical changes came before him, and were elected to the unconstitutional body that will write a new constitution. Then the new ruler was voted, but those are two different things. In theory, the new constitution could get the new leader out of power, though it's unlikely.

 

[bilby]

Could Chile show the United States how to rebuild its democracy? | Tony Karon | The Guardian - 2021 Dec 23
"The US once helped destroy Chilean democracy. Now, a constitutional reform movement in Chile could teach the US how to fix its own"

Chile always gave the lie to the cold war claim that the United States stood for democracy. When its voters in 1970 showed the temerity (“irresponsibility”, Henry Kissinger called it) to elect socialist Salvador Allende as president, Washington helped orchestrate the coup that toppled him, and backed the resulting dictatorship.

It seems those “irresponsible” Chilean voters are at it again – on Sunday, they elected leftist Gabriel Boric as president by a 12-point margin, on the back of a campaign for a new constitution. But if Chilean democracy seems on the road to recovery from its Washington-backed disfiguration, prospects for democracy in the United States look rather bleak.

Then the problems that the US faces, like unbalanced sizes of states and the Senate and the Electoral College, and the difficulty of amending the US Constitution.

Boric is a product of a student rebellion a decade ago that fed into a broader social justice movement focused on issues ranging from austerity, a failing social safety net, healthcare and economic inequality to gender violence and Indigenous rights. While even center-left governments were stymied from delivering on voter expectations, many in this parliament of the streets recognized that their grievances were products of the democracy deficit built into the dictatorship’s 1980 constitution to ensure continuity of its economic model.

Although it allowed Chileans to elect their president and lower house of parliament, that constitution built in minority vetoes, such as appointing one-third of senators and much of the judiciary, as failsafe mechanisms to prevent democratically elected politicians from enacting the systemic changes demanded by voters. Thus the emergence of a democracy movement based outside formal political parties, which in late 2019 won a referendum to have a new constitution democratically drafted. That movement’s energy also propelled Boric to power.

Actually, the undemocratic "failsafe" mechanisms had already been removed in previous constitutional amendments, which were made in accordance to the constitution. For example, the senate is elected democratically (see e.g. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Chile_2015.pdf?lang=en ).

This new constitution is going to be made in violation of amendment rules, which damages Chile's reputation and institutional instability. That was a big mistake, regardless of the merits of the new constitution (on that note, I hope I'm wrong, but I expect the new constitution to be pretty bad due to left-wing ideology built into it; that is another matter, though). That was not necessary. They could have amended the constitution without violating it. They could have even done it by referendum - just by previously amended the procedure for constitutional amendments. Now it's a mess.

Left-wing? Yeah, maybe they should re-Pinochet Chile to fix that.

Why would you say that? Your sarcasm seems so out of place, like an accusation. Pinochet was a murderous right-wing dictator, okay?
And I expect the new constitution to be pretty bad due to the left-wing ideology that will likely be built into it.

Yup, let's murder the folk musicians to prevent that left-wing ideology.

What are you talking about? I never advocated murdering anyone. Which musicians are you talking about?
I'm saying that the new constitution will probably be bad. And the procedure to make it is already bad because it's unconstitutional, even if the end result happens to be surprisingly good.

The procedure by which the US constitution was made was not only unconstitutional; It was explicitly treasonous.

New constitutions generally don't conform with their predecessors; If they did, they wouldn't be necessary (nor new).

 

[bilby]

New proposals will require two-thirds approval and without a third of the delegates, the government will struggle to block radical changes to the constitution unless it can forge new alliances.

So the new socialist ruler of Chile (Allende 2.0?) wants to impose "radical changes" to the constitution?
That's not going to end well ...

I doesn't matter what his politics are. Constitutions should not be rewritten. We do it the right way--amendments that require supermajorites to pass.

Don't look up.

What do you mean by that?

I explicitly mean "look up there at the text I bolded and enlarged, and try to grasp that your objection is baseless.

He objects to the process by contrasting it with the requirement for a supermajority in his preferred alternative, but seems to not have noticed the explicit requirement for a supermajority in the process.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The procedure by which the US constitution was made was not only unconstitutional; It was explicitly treasonous.

Treasonous against another country, not the US, which did not exist. There was no way to constitutionally do that. Well, maybe there was a way, with the help of the UK government, but they wouldn't cooperate.

But revolutions are not exactly good examples of stability. They are sometimes acceptable as a last resort. There was no last resort here.

New constitutions generally don't conform with their predecessors; If they did, they wouldn't be necessary (nor new).

Constitutions generally provide a procedure by which they can be modified. That procedure itself can be modified too. Violating the existing constitution is a gratuitous injury against Chile's international image of a stable country with respect to the rule of law, and also to the latter at a domestic level.

They said they wanted a more democratic procedure to make the new constitution, instead of following the established procedure. But given that there was enough political support for changing the constitution by a referendum, they could have just added that method to the current constitution (by a constitutionally valid amendment), and then call election for a constitutional convention. That would have taken no time (just pass the article with the required majorities), and would have avoided the damage resulting from the bad procedure.


And if there was not enough support, it was a bad idea to violate the constitution (though to be fair, it was a bad idea to amend it as they will, anyway).

 

[bilby]

The procedure by which the US constitution was made was not only unconstitutional; It was explicitly treasonous.

Treasonous against another country, not the US, which did not exist.

Treasonous against their own country - the UK, of which the North American colonies were a lawful posession. Obviously not against the USA, which didn't exist.

There was no way to constitutionally do that. Well, maybe there was a way, with the help of the UK government, but they wouldn't cooperate.

The UK government was lawfully their government. They were just as morally bound to act within the constraints imposed by that government as the Chilean constitutional convention are to act in accordance with the existing Chilean constitution - ie Not at all.

It was disastrous for their international reputation, too. The entire British Empire, which included a large fraction of the world, not least their closest neighbour, British Canada, shunned them. Shit, thirty six years later they invaded and burned down a number of their important government buildings.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The UK government was lawfully their government. They were just as morally bound to act within the constraints imposed by that government as the Chilean constitutional convention are to act in accordance with the existing Chilean constitution - ie Not at all.

Generally, one does have an obligation not to break the law, though there are circumstances in which that is not so, which have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. I am not familiar with the circumstances of the Americans who wrote the constitution to know which ones acted permissibly. However, that is neither here nor there.

It was disastrous for their international reputation, too. The entire British Empire, which included a large fraction of the world, not least their closest neighbour, British Canada, shunned them. Shit, thirty six years later they invaded and burned down a number of their important government buildings.

Because they wrote the constitution in violation of the UK's (unwritten) one? Or was it because of the revolution, which began earlier? I think the latter. Regardless, that does not affect my point at all. I'm saying this bad procedure is bad for Chile. And it's gratuitous. Unlike the Americans who wrote their constitution, in Chile this could have been done without violating theirs (it would still have been a bad idea if the content of the new constitution is as bad as I expect, but it would not have been doubly bad due to the bad procedure).

 

[laughing dog]

A point of historical order. The US Constitution was written in 1787 after the conclusion of the Revolutionary War. The US was a country at that point. So, it was not treasonous.

If you want to say the US Declaration of Independence was treasonous, you would be correct.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yup, let's murder the folk musicians to prevent that left-wing ideology.

What are you talking about? I never advocated murdering anyone. Which musicians are you talking about?

Just the dead ones.

I'm saying that the new constitution will probably be bad. And the procedure to make it is already bad because it's unconstitutional, even if the end result happens to be surprisingly good.

Yeah, evil left-wing ideology... gotta support a coup!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A point of historical order. The US Constitution was written in 1787 after the conclusion of the Revolutionary War. The US was a country at that point. So, it was not treasonous.

If you want to say the US Declaration of Independence was treasonous, you would be correct.

*cough* Articles of Confederation *cough*

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yup, let's murder the folk musicians to prevent that left-wing ideology.

What are you talking about? I never advocated murdering anyone. Which musicians are you talking about?

Just the dead ones.

I'm saying that the new constitution will probably be bad. And the procedure to make it is already bad because it's unconstitutional, even if the end result happens to be surprisingly good.

Yeah, evil left-wing ideology... gotta support a coup!

Why do you behave in that manner?

No, I never advocated murdering dead musicians, either. And no, I do not support a coup. And it's just wrong on your part to keep accusing me like that. Luckily, there will be no coup, there is no chance of that. But it seems likely the constitution will be left-wing, and even race-based, or ethnicity-based. I hope not. Maybe the worst parts won't get enough support, so there is some room for hope.

 

[Derec]

Thanks for your opinion. What we know at this point is that there are a lot of people on your (the conservative) side freaking out, and the constitution has yet to be written let alone ratified.

I am not a conservative, but that does not mean I am not concerned about a socialist taking over.

That socialists are not conservatives doesn't mean their agenda is a slam dunk. There's a 155 member "constitutional convention":

The last socialist who was elected president in Chile ruled by decree bypassing the legislature and ignoring the courts.

Yeah, sounds pretty consistent with socialists. But it also sounds consistent with an effort to create a government that is representative of a population. So if a representative democracy emerges from this convention, are you going to call it Venezuela before it even takes a seat?

I am not a big fan of quotas. I am also quite skeptical that the Boric Acid Regime will not make a right mess of things. But we shall see.
I wonder what the regime will do about sex work. It is currently legal, but socialists and other femi-leftists have been quite eager to implement the sexist Swedish model wherever they took power.

Do you want another Pinochet?

No, but a new Pinochet may well be the outcome ...

 

[Derec]

Actually, the people who want to impose radical changes came before him, and were elected to the unconstitutional body that will write a new constitution. Then the new ruler was voted, but those are two different things. In theory, the new constitution could get the new leader out of power, though it's unlikely.

My bad - I thought Boric Acid taking over and the rewriting of the constitution were connected.

 

[lpetrich]

I doesn't matter what his politics are. Constitutions should not be rewritten. We do it the right way--amendments that require supermajorites to pass.

Even amendments that are major revisions of a constitution? I note that this commission's changes will require 2/3 supermajorities to be elected.

Yes, that is another one of my points. The procedure is wrong too. It's damaging Chile's international image, and further undermining the rule of law domestically.

Evidence?

 

[lpetrich]

Chile Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage at Fraught Political Moment - The New York Times - "The legalization of same-sex marriage in Chile comes as the country grapples with sweeping demands for social change."

Chilean president-elect Gabriel Boric urges citizens to back constitution rewrite | Chile | The Guardian - "Boric envisions a greener, fairer and more inclusive country, reflecting the generational shift underway in Chile"

A Year of Defeat — and Hope
Mostly discussing the trials and tribulations of the UK Labour Party, but with some mention of Latin America.

Last year saw setbacks for the Left in much of the world, but recent victories in Latin America are a reminder that socialist politics continue to offer an alternative to a system in crisis.

...
Socialists could also take heart from some major breakthroughs overseas, particularly in Latin America. Left-winger Xiomara Castro won the Honduran presidential election in November, deposing the right-wing narco-dictatorship installed by a US-backed coup against her husband, Manuel Zelaya, in 2009. Before that, in April, Pedro Castillo narrowly won the Peruvian presidential election. But its results were subject to prolonged, groundless dispute by his far-right rival, Keiko Fujimori, and Castillo — lacking a majority in the legislature — has been hemmed in by right-wing forces, which have seemingly succeeded in isolating him.

The Chilean left has also scored some inspirational victories this year. In 2020 — after months of large-scale protests and the emergence of a mass social movement firmly rooted in Chile’s working-class communities — 78 percent of Chileans voted to replace the country’s Augusto Pinochet–era constitution. Elections were held in May 2021 to determine the composition of the constitutional assembly that will draw up the new document, and resulted in a left-of-center majority — marking something of a humiliation for the Right.

However, the Chilean right rallied somewhat in the presidential election in November, with far-right candidate Jose Antonio Kast — an open admirer of the Pinochet junta, and son of a Nazi — winning in the first round with an alarming 28 percent of the vote. Fortunately, left-winger Gabriel Boric, a former student leader, won comfortably in the second round. Potentially Chile’s most left-wing president since the country’s great martyr Salvador Allende, Boric faces a difficult task in implementing his program, with a legislature delicately balanced between left and right, and the specter of right-wing reaction again stalking the country.

 

[barbos]

Why does it matter that this "body" which is writing the new new constitution is unconstitutional? Lots of things are are unconstitutional - traffic lights for example, nothing in constitution mentions them.
Anyone could write constitution, it's passing it what matters.

 

[Jarhyn]

New proposals will require two-thirds approval and without a third of the delegates, the government will struggle to block radical changes to the constitution unless it can forge new alliances.

So the new socialist ruler of Chile (Allende 2.0?) wants to impose "radical changes" to the constitution?
That's not going to end well ...

I doesn't matter what his politics are. Constitutions should not be rewritten. We do it the right way--amendments that require supermajorites to pass.

I disagree. Sometimes constitutions need to be pulled down and started over. Not every development or system is built correctly or even recoverably.

I think that the US Constitution needs to be rewritten entirely.

Sometimes, 2.0 is necessary.