By Richard Sanders (The Wilson Center)
HAVANA TIMES – For the second time in little more than a year, Chileans are evaluating a proposed new constitution. After an earlier draft, prepared by a constitutional convention dominated by leftist delegates, was decisively rejected in a referendum in September 2022, a second draft, this time pieced together by a convention led by conservatives, will go before the public on December 17. It is a very different document, but it runs the risk of meeting the same fate as its predecessor.
Fundamentally, the existing structure of governance would be maintained: A president directly elected for a maximum of two four-year terms; a bicameral Congress; an independent judiciary; and regional governments with significant powers. That said, the proposed charter also has innovations, such as a provision for public consultation; a specialized anti-corruption agency; a reduction in the size of Congress; and a requirement that political parties obtain at least five percent of the vote to win any seats in Congress.
Largely Conservative, But Not Entirely
To gain support from leftist or at least centrist voters, the conservative delegates included some concessions. They declared Chile a “social and democratic state of law,” though one subject to “fiscal responsibility” and where private institutions play a large role.
The proposed document includes commitments to protecting the environment and respecting the rights of the Indigenous, although in more general terms than in the earlier version. It upholds the principle of “balanced” participation of men and women in the legislature, although not “parity,” as in the previous draft. Finally, it includes rights to housing, water, and consumer protection.
However, the proposed constitution includes other provisions that reflect conservative priorities. Chile’s existing constitution, written under the Augusto Pinochet dictatorship, has been interpreted to allow abortion under limited circumstances. However, the new draft has raised concerns that its language may be interpreted by the courts to ban the procedure
