Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
The result of the Constitutional referendum in Chile, with 88% of the ballot boxes counted: 38% Approve, 62% Reject. Early in the morning and, therefore, when the voting continued, I received this testimonial from Patricia Morales, founder and former President of Chile’s PRO party.
“Ricardo,
After having voted for rejection, I sit in a banquet at Saint George’s College.
After having voted against a longing that I pursued for years … about ten years. How did we get to this?
On October 18, 2019, Chile exploded.
Millions of people took to the streets to shout “no more”.
No more pretending that the neoliberal system can with quality education, health, and pension. No more pretending that we are a developed society when any Chilean knows that his life depends only on him because the social fabric of the State of guaranteed rights has long since vanished.
Millions of us took to the streets, happy, hoping that something new would happen …
A dream that would turn into a nightmare. Chronicle of a death foretold: when the form is also the substance.
- At the outbreak of the social crisis, we witnessed the deployment of Colombian and Mexican drug cartels throughout the country.
- We all saw some foreigners on the front lines of the demonstrations, making barricades and guarding those of us demonstrating behind. But no one really wanted to believe the infiltration theory … or to assume that this complicity between citizens tired of this Chile and criminals was undermining the country.
- Piñera, in a historical incapacity to lead this process, gave up on public security and called for a new Constitution in the most inorganic way possible.
- Although the vast majority of Chileans voted in favor of a constitutional change (78%), no one could have imagined the pathetic, horrific case study that this process would mean:
a. Very poor preparation of those elected
b. Intellectuals, lawyers, and technocrats were left out of the Assembly, only to be replaced by people with zero preparation, hatred, and puppets.
It should have been a historic moment, but it was a landmark circus.
c. It was twelve months of clowning around after clowning around. - a. The draft constitution was transformed into a supermarket list that was impossible to implement.
b. A political chapter was designed to fragment the country, killing the unitary State and taking away all prerogatives from the Senators who represent the regions.
c. As for the judicial system, it takes away the autonomy of the Supreme Court, one of the few good things of our system, and even worse, it generates a double legal system, for native peoples and others.
d. The draft of the new constitution assigns to the State several duties that are impossible to assume as if civil society or the private sector had no role to play.
In short, it seems to be the wish of a bunch of children eager to receive everything in exchange for nothing after years of abuse. It is the worst way to think about the country.
- To this, Boric’s improvised, juvenile and unserious performance is added. In this context, it is not perceived that Boric can control anything. It is perceived that the constitution would only make everything worse.
What is coming is not better, Ricardo. Both scenarios are complex. If the rejection wins, politicians are called to demonstrate for the last time if they can be serious and rigorous … of which, I do not want to think what is coming.”
One last conclusion about the plebiscite: apart from the testimony of our friend Patricia before knowing the result, it is clear that Chile demands unitary and consensual policies and not the impositions of “a single idea”. Hopefully, the rest of Latin America will listen to what was pronounced by a nation that voted freely and imposed its opinion. Mexican rulers must listen and learn from the Chilean people.
[email protected]
@rpascoepgmail-com
Also by Ricardo Pascoe Pierce: