Less than a month and a half before the exit plebiscite on September 4, where citizens will choose whether or not to approve the new Magna Carta prepared by the Constitutional Convention, the President of the Republic, Gabriel Boric, assured that in the event of that the Rejection is imposed, the 1980 constitution should not be continued.
This, since “it does not represent a social agreement in Chile”, but rather, “there must be a new constituent process” and, for that, a new election of conventionals must be called.
You may also be interested in:
“Not being certain of what will happen in a month and a half influences uncertainty. And it is legitimate to support any of the options. I approve or reject. What we have to ask ourselves is what will happen the day after. Chile voted clearly in a plebiscite that he wants a new Constitution, and not only that, written by a body specially elected for that purpose. Therefore, if the Rejection alternative wins, we are going to have to prolong this process for another year and a half,” stated the President in conversation with Chilevision.
These statements generated various reactions from the political world, being the Minister of the Segpres, Giorgio Jackson, and the Government spokesperson, Camila Vallejo, who addressed the “road map” set by the head of state in the event that the proposal for a new Fundamental Charter.
Given this, Vallejo agreed that “there is a popular mandate to have a new Constitution and with people democratically elected for these purposes exclusively.”
The “insistence on respecting the popular mandate is a priority,” he added.
Meanwhile, the head of the Segpres, Giorgio Jackson, stated that “at least what the President has stated is that on October 25, 2020, there was a very majority will that 80% of the population chose both because they start a process with a new Constitution. And at the same time, that it be drafted by people who fulfill that purpose. Evidently the President has said today what he has said, that on September 4 there are going to be two options and they are quite clear and distinct , one is to approve the text that has been proposed and another is to reject it”.
“In the event that the proposed text is approved, our job as a Government is to be able to implement it and make the improvements that are necessary so that this process leads to the unity of the country and to the changes that we have proposed. In the case of Rejection , where the mandate of 80% of the population for a new Constitution would obviously collide with the response of the population regarding a specific proposed text, is that the President is willing to call elections, that this has to be approved in a reform by Congress, in such a way that we have a new opportunity to have a text,” he added.
Along the same lines, he pointed out that “this is a decision made by the President, which we discussed by the way within the political committee and that the President is the one who finally makes a decision. I also imagine that it is to deliver certainty to the population. They have asked us so much that it seemed reasonable to me, and the President thinks so and we also discussed it with the political committee, that he could transmit this openly to the citizenry.”
On the other hand, the Minister of the Interior, Izkia Siches, deepened that “the interpretations that are being considered, eventually, are to contemplate, for example, calling elections for new conventional, starting a new process, he has marked today a roadmap, and it is important that we know the text, discuss and debate with the true information and participate in it this September 4”.
“Without a doubt, after September 4 we have to build a country that advances in development, social security, better performance for everyone, and I believe that our President’s call is broad, it includes all sectors to continue building this country. more prosperous,” he added.
The reactions of parliamentarians were long in coming, and the deputy of the Communist Party, Karol Cariola, maintained that “the mandate of the people of Chile was to end the Pinochet Constitution and open the doors to a new democratic Constitution for our country”
“The will of President Gabriel Boric is that this mandate be respected and his position seems very correct to me,” he added.
For the president of the Chamber of Deputies, Raúl Soto (PPD) argued that the President’s statements are “politically responsible”, since if the Rejection is imposed, it allows to set a new roadmap “that of stability and governability to Chile” , while if you win Approval, this allows you to “improve the text”.
On the other hand, the president of the Senate, Álvaro Elizalde (PS), pointed out that despite being “legally valid”, the 1980 constitution “is politically and socially repealed, according to the clear result of the plebiscite that started the process constituent”. This, since “in the event that the Approval is not successful, this process must continue.”
RESPONSES FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
After the president’s statements, the former vice president of the Constitutional Convention, Gaspar Domínguez, maintained that his words “confirm how the Rejection option produces two effects.”
“First, it maintains political and economic uncertainty for at least three more years with the convalescent Constitution that nobody wants in the background. Second and more importantly, it stretches the gum of the social transformations demanded by citizens in matters of health, housing and education” , he pointed.
“It is very for Chile and the people who do not win the Approval,” he said.
Meanwhile, the former deputy vice president of the constitutional body, Bárbara Sepúlveda (PC), stated that “according to what the President has said, Approval is the best option for Chile. Approve implies that subsequent adjustments can be made to a democratic text and with minimal insured with social welfare. Congress has zero legitimacy to carry out a constitutional process and everyone knows it, that is why the citizenry chose a Convention”
“It is obvious that there would have to be another constituent process and for that reason it is better to approve, because there are those who cannot afford to wait 3 or 4 more years to have another proposal for a new Constitution, since Chileans have needs that can be resolved only with the new text, such as health,” he said.
