Professor Agustín Squella has voice problems, a bit hoarse, he says that it is a memory of his more than fifty years teaching law at the University of Valparaíso and at U. Diego Portales. But the voice problems are a detail when he remembers the work he was doing, in March of last year, as a constituent in the first Constitutional Convention of 2022.
Lawyer from the University of Chile, PhD in Law from the Complutense University of Madrid, Squella is the National Award for Humanities and Social Sciences (2009) and author of numerous books, including Introduction to Law (Legal Publishing House of Chile, 2002), Are you Liberal? I do, but… (Lolita Editores, 2012) and, more recently, Notes of a constituent (UDP Editorial, 2022), where he recounts in detail his days trying to draft the new Constitution.
From the tranquility of his home, where he is dedicated to writing and reading, he is carefully observing the new attempt to write the Constitution of the 21st century, after the resounding failure of the previous proposal after the categorical 63% Rejection last September. In this interview, Squella talks about his expectations and concerns about the new process that began yesterday Monday, again at the headquarters of the former National Congress in Santiago.
-Yesterday the work of the Commission of Experts began, how do you see the beginning of this constituent process II? Optimistic or pessimistic?
-As almost always happens to me, somewhat pessimistic from reason (things could go wrong), but always optimistic in terms of will (everyone has the duty to do what is within their reach so that they go as well as possible ).
-What errors of the previous constitutional process must be avoided in this new process of constitutional discussion?
-We must avoid the very visible errors that we made in the former Convention, starting from the fact that the actors involved feel that they are historical figures for the mere fact of fulfilling a function that is historical. Avoid the infatuation that was incurred and, of course, do not discard direct and loyal conversation with any sector within the three bodies of this process, no matter how much you have the votes to do without any of them. Avoid, of course, the refoundational error, but without calling what are only transformations “refoundational”. To discredit the former Convention and its proposal, the “refounding” accusation was widely used. The only refoundation I know of was the one carried out by the 17-year dictatorship that we had and that so many would like to forget or bury in the attic of memories.
-Did you agree with this structure of the Commission of Experts, the Technical Admissibility Committee and the Constitutional Council?
-To be frank, the monkey was very strange. It looks a lot like a three-headed animal – a Constitutional Council, an Expert Commission and an Admissibility Committee – and even four-headed if you count the 12 bases that also accompany it. But this criticism does not prevent me from wishing and hoping for the success of the new process. Otherwise, we will continue in the constitutional limbo we are in. You never have to give up criticism or self-criticism, but neither prevents the desire and the will for things to go well. The constitutions of dictatorships, of whatever sign they are, are not reformed, they are replaced
-Is this model of three commissions a way to establish a “discussion framework” or to “limit the discussion”?
-I think both things, and there is a certain risk that the conservative sectors, always very powerful, will get that in the end everything is reduced to one or another modification and updating of the text of the current Constitution. This has also been said by some leading center-right experts, who, by the way, were not supported by their parties when it came to joining any of the bodies of the process or participating in the vote that will take place in May. In general, and as always, the parties elected docile militants, more than qualified and with independent judgment.
-Which of all these instances (Experts, Technical Committee and Council) do you consider most relevant?
-It should be the elected Council, but we will have to see it. It is already rare that the Expert Commission is the one that writes the first text proposal for review and vote later in the Council. Technique before politics, those appointed before those elected, a logic that has trapped us for a long time, not to mention in matters of the economy. Before, Chile was saved by providential men, later by the parties and their coalitions, then by the independents, and now it seems the time for the experts. All of them are necessary, but without loading the inks in favor of one or the other.
Fears for the former Convention
-Have you seen this structure or format of constitutional discussion in another constituent process in the world?
-No. It seems to me that it is a local invention and very determined by our habitual fears, which – it must be admitted – were activated, without that being the intention, by the former Convention. The citizens initially gave us their support, but then they distanced themselves, cooled off, and most of them ended up grabbing monkeys from us. We should have noticed this change, but we chose to remain locked up in Morandé with Company, and I am not referring to the television program of the same name.
-What do you think of the debate that arose as a result of the declarations of the president of the Communist Party (PC), Guillermo Teillier, regarding mobilizing in May?
-The same, again. He doesn’t learn. Regarding the former Convention, the PC called to “surround it”, which was difficult not to understand as a warning and perhaps even as a threat. But, on the other hand, the current model, which does not surround the Constitutional Council from the outside, from the street, it surrounds the process from within with the multiplicity of organs and bases. It should not be necessary to “mobilise” to ensure that the failed proposal is also on the table for the actors in the new process. There is much salvageable in it.
-What would happen if this new constitutional process fails?
-This type of process can fail in its mission (presenting a proposal for a new Constitution within the deadline) or in its objective (that the proposal be accepted by the majority of citizens). The former Convention failed in the latter, and as regards the process now under way, it cannot be allowed to fail. Failing twice in the Convention would be a lot, almost as much as going down the division in professional football. For this reason, criticism of the process must be compatible with the fact that these two purposes are now fulfilled. The prestige of a country does not depend only on the free trade agreements it signs.
-Was it a good way to channel the discontent of October 18, 2019 with the need for a new Constitution?
-It could and should have been better, less fearful, but it is clear that the country has had a lot to assimilate in recent times: a political and social crisis, a long pandemic, the partial failure of a Constitutional Convention, and a difficult economic crisis. forecast. There is also a generational change in politics that puzzles and even angers many. Everything happens in the midst of circumstances and you cannot close your eyes to their incidence. The constitutions of dictatorships, of whatever sign they are, are replaced, not reformed. And as for the generational change, which is a fact, it is surprising to see so many of my generation denouncing it as an evil that should have been avoided, but what do they want? That the new generations adopt the same ideas as the old ones? Did we do that when we were young? Is it that we refer to the young as a promise while we treat them as a threat? The worst way to grow old, I often repeat, is ephebophobia (hatred or fear of the young), from which neither can one be cured by turning to ephebophilia (preference for the young), that is, unconditional applause for the young. Also in this we lack moderation, balance and leave the furies aside.
