Along with congratulating Rapa Nui for the decision that the majority took in the plebiscite on September 4 —the only commune with a high indigenous population that opted for Approval— and highlighting the participation of indigenous women in the political debate, Elisa Loncon assured that The triumph of the Rejection of the constitutional proposal emanating from the constitutional convention that she herself presided over, in the Mapuche area, occurred due to “violence, marginality, economic instability and false news.” In Wallmapu, she said, the position of the two extremes that do not want to dialogue was strongly influenced: “the extreme right and the radicalized Mapuche groups that long ago left behind any protocol of political dialogue.”
In interview with The counter, The former convention also addressed the role of the reserved seats in the country’s first constitutional convention, mainly for having installed plurinationality in the political debate —in line with international treaties—, emphasizing that “it is a constitutional principle that does not violate the unity of the state”. However, accusing a campaign of terror against said concept and highlighting the context of violence typical of the State of Exception, she pointed out that the conventionalists lacked support from their own people.
– What is your assessment of the rejection of the communes with the largest indigenous population —except Rapa Nui— to the proposal of the Constitutional Convention that you joined, despite the fact that it included declaring Chile as a Plurinational State?
-First of all, congratulate Rapa Nui and recognize the work of former conventional Tiare Aguilera for her achievements and the support of her people. Rapa Nui is a nice case to follow. The rejection in the Mapuche area is proportional to the rejection in communes and sacrificed areas in Chile such as Petorca and sectors such as the prisoners, there was more or less 1/3 support for this. The reasons for the Rejection are the same as those already mentioned: violence, marginality, economic instability, and the very good Rejection campaign that covered all the local radio stations misinforming the community: that they would lose their homes, that plurinationality divides Chile , etc etc. The Wallmapu was strongly influenced by the position of the two extremes that do not want to talk: the extreme right and the radicalized Mapuche groups that long ago left behind any protocol of political dialogue. We must also rescue the positive, the reserved seats we did politics, we did educational work, we got the support of other political sectors and this was not easy. We install plurinationality in the political debate as a constitutional principle to dialogue politically with the State, we fill it with content with the rights of peoples, those that are part of international treaties signed and ratified by our own rulers, are part of human rights inescapable of the peoples: the right to land, autonomy, self-determination, cultural and linguistic rights, and none of this threatens the unity of the State, that is what the treaties say and that is why the former presidents of Chile signed it post dictatorship.
In the process it is important to highlight the participation of indigenous women in the political debate, those of us who previously toured the communities organizing our peoples to recover rights, who live the tradition, marginalization and who prepare ourselves all our lives for that moment.
– Do you agree with the approach of the lawyer and former conventionalist Rosa Catrileo, who assured that the Mapuche’s rejection of plurinationality is just speculation and that the mismatch occurred for other reasons?
-As I already explained, they voted as Chilean and Mapuche or Chilean Mapuche, who live in sacrificed territory, pushed by a good campaign of terror and with a lot of violence typical of the State of Exception. We conventionalists lacked support from our own people, in addition to the campaign against plurinationality. Although there were outstanding brothers that I do not name so as not to leave any name out and that the people recognize by their faces, words and their pens, but others, they shined calling to reject. We are a society that seeks balance, reciprocity, complement, our leaders in the past stood out for their diplomacy and we needed all of this. If we still exist it is thanks to collective norms, our values and knowledge, the politics of brotherhood and that we must not let go, today more than ever.
– Could we affirm that on September 4 the rejection of the country’s plurinationality won and therefore a nationalist sentiment triumphed, as Professor Enrique Antileo also points out?
-The Rejection motivated by the plurinationality was one of the many reasons, but all the Rejection does not fall only on the plurinationality. I speak from within the process, as a woman, from self-criticism and not as a spectator. Chile was founded without us, without the peoples and policies have been made so that we disappear, we have to review our history so as not to repeat the genocide that the State carries in its history with the original peoples. We are the survivors of that dark history and we have permeated Chilean society biologically, culturally, with language; Chile, its culture and identity is not without its indigenous roots, let us not forget that the greats of literature were recognized for their territories and roots, Neruda and Mistral, Violeta Parra as Nicanor, have always reminded us of them. What happened with the plurinationality was a campaign of terror coupled with contempt for the original peoples; what also happened was the lack of care and failures of the Convention itself, we did not take care of the forms that are so important for the people, the people, the people wanted to see us without the mistakes made, they did not care about our sacrifice or the self-exploration to which we we exhibited and the rejection was commissioned from within to ignore us as part of Chile, criticizing our language, our costumes, what for us was the most beautiful, they transformed it into the most reprehensible; errors and weaknesses were inputs for rejection, first they discredited the messenger and then the message; for which he had the financial and media resources. I also felt the lack of support as I have stated. We need strong political organizations that articulate the political dialogue with the State, with the parties and social movements. When I was president I received two groups of authorities from Traiguén and Lumaco, they came to give us their support, it was a nice gesture of people and brothers; we needed this and many more. The parties also have study centers and resources, the towns do not. We need to reinforce the strategy of political horizontality, of community that Leftraru and Janequeo used to defend their people, so if one falls, ten, one hundred and thousands rise up, as our mariachiweu says.
Today it is true that the concept of plurinationality is wounded, however, I must remind you that the CEP survey indicates that more than 80% of the Mapuche population recognizes themselves as Mapuche, Mapuche-Chilean or Chilean-Mapuche, all these identity intersections speak of a society multinational and intercultural. I believe that these issues cannot remain so pending, and ways must be found in the new constituent process of this heterogeneous unit that we are as a country. We need a second chance with plurinationality so that all the people of Chile understand that our fight is not to oppress or dominate anyone, much less to deprive them of their rights; we just want to continue living as peoples in our territory, together with the history that we have been building in this country called Chile. The social explosion showed in a spontaneous and intelligible way how the uninationality was transformed into a plurinationality, with the flags of the peoples and with our languages written on the walls. A neglected language recovered its social function in the streets. When we spoke Mapuzugun and television showed it to Chile, the girls and boys wanted to learn our languages. This Chile exists, it has only been hurt.
– What do you think of the current discussion on preparing a new Constitutional Convention and what do you think that the discussion on seats reserved for Indigenous Peoples has been left pending? Do you agree with the deputy Emilia Nuyado (PS), who said that it is racist to leave this discussion for the last?
-The constitution must be for all peoples; Democracy must be pluralized to strengthen society. Today it is also wounded by so much mistrust of the parties, of parliamentarians, of the government. We need to see ourselves as a Chile that has overcome exclusion, in our substantive equality. For this reason, I call on the indigenous people of parties, from the left to the right to act collectively for the rights of political representation of their peoples, just as we conventionalists did, work on their referents to change that colonial mentality of domination to the other because is indigenous. Peoples like women have the legitimacy to represent our struggles, feelings and contributions. The Reserved Seats earned us a place in the discussion of Chilean democracy. Even when the proposal for a new Constitution was rejected, there are issues to address, and these cannot be left out, one of them is the indigenous peoples, we need to advance in a participatory and representative democracy of Chilean society as a whole In addition, the State has a debt with the peoples, even the right wing of the former Convention recognized this debt in a letter to the peoples, headed by Hernán Larraín. The reserved seats represent the political way to resolve a conflict of centuries and the parties must be visionary.
– How should the idea of plurinationality be addressed in the eventual new Constitution?
-Based on what has already been advanced in legal and technical matters in Chile; considering the Indigenous Law 19,253, the ILO Convention 169, the New Treatment Report, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. All these instruments make it possible to find a solution to the dispossession of land, collective goods, language and culture, to advance in political rights for the peoples, with political representation via reserved seats, and in the exercise of autonomy and free determination in their territories. They are our rights and their recognition constitutes the solution to the centuries-old problems that the State has with the peoples, it is the political path that we resume in the constituent work.
