[ad_1]
There are several questions that President Sebastián Piñera has left, after he chose to refer to the constitutional discussion that will follow the October 25 plebiscite, instead of doing it with respect to his option in the plebiscite itself, following the same line of disregard that he framework. To talk about what is to come, Piñera chose to prioritize Congress as the body in charge of assuming “constitutional responsibility”. The problem is that that alternative does not appear in the enacted law, nor in the transversal agreement of November 15, rather it corresponds to the path traced by the Rejection option, after concluding that the approval of the approval seems unstoppable.
Although they know that the Rejection loses in all forecasts, they are convinced that they can stop the Constituent Convention (Assembly) by the ballot box or by secretariat. Hence, the President’s words caused the opposition to set off alarms immediately. From the Palace there are two versions. One would point out that it is one more “way out” of the President, and the other is that this would have been part of what was agreed to give an institutional solution to the social outbreak of October.
The first was on August 18, after having presented the Social Protection Committee. During the press point, the Head of State was consulted by the absence of La Moneda and its ministers with a view to the plebiscite. On the occasion, the President elaborated on the responsibilities that he has as Executive and in the middle of his speech he pointed out that “in that plebiscite that is contemplated in our Constitution, there are two options (…), one is a constituent convention, and the other is for Congress to assume that constitutional responsibility, because we all want to improve and change the Constitution ”.
The second time he insisted on the subject was during the interview he gave to Third on August 22, where he pointed to both paths: “If it is the path of the Constituent Assembly or of modifying, perfecting, improving the Constitution (…), the other path is for all of us to make a firm commitment to grant Congress that we are going to elect next year, this special mandate to perfect, modernize our Constitution. Those are the two ways ”. Finally, in the interview with Cristián Warnken, on the same Sunday, Piñera reiterated that “the roads are a constituent convention; the other is to make the reforms that are required in Congress ”.
Neither the agreement for Peace and a New Constitution, nor in the current Law 21,200, is mentioned to Congress as an alternative to reform the Magna Carta. Rather, what is done is to detail the work mechanics and responsibilities that the Constituent Convention, which refers to elected citizens under the current parliamentary system, or the Mixed Convention, in which there is available half of the constituents elected by the citizens and the other half representatives of Parliament.
The questions that are asked by several across the political spectrum is: why did he say it? What is behind those words? So far these questions have not found a satisfactory answer, rather, the field of interpretations has been opened at all levels, going from the “loquacity” of the President –as pointed out from Palacio– to a nod to the Rejection sector of Chile. the one who has not lost hope that the government will end up aligning itself with its option.
The truth is that for various observers the first of the interpretations would be ruled out, since one thing is the style of the President – who likes improvisation – and quite another is the argumentative insistence, since, it was not in a single opportunity in who argued that Congress could take responsibility for the constituent mission but that there were at least three. That, they argue, speaks more than one strategy.
The other option that is being discussed is whether this would finally be the formula to satisfy the toughest sector of the Rejection based in Chile Vamos, which, although during the last week closed ranks with the President, with respect to dispensing with, has not abandoned the idea that the Government and the President himself take up the flags of Rejection. An issue, in any case, that would be closed at the Palace.
This has been demonstrated by statements such as those of Deputy Diego Schalper (RN), who stated that “I believe that the Government must guarantee that all expressions have the possibility of expressing themselves with full guarantees. That is not incompatible with having a position. What is expected of the Government is equanimity, not neutrality “. Or the statements of the president of the UDI, Senator Jacqueline Van Rysselberghe, who last week expressed that “I would love for (President Piñera) to point out that he is for the Rejection.”
From La Moneda the explanation that has been given is that the Approval rests on the formula of the Constituent or Mixed Convention, and that the Rejection instead opts for the current Parliament, and that accounting for those positions is the only thing that the President. To this they add the public commitment that the Head of State adopted to promote reforms, in addition to the fact that the original government program also contemplated reforms in various areas to the Constitution.
The problem again intersects with the official sector for the Approval, which agrees that the President’s words are not “correct”, because it is trying to superimpose the idea of Congress as a reformist entity and that this is part of the agreement, which is not it is real.
The director of the UDP School of Advertising, Cristián Leporati, stated that “it is a very, very risky move by Piñera, for a change (…). Beyond the agreement of November 15, all that is the constitutional reform and the options that are the mixed or constitutional conventions, are commitments that are acquired, not in the elite or in a power group, not in Parliament or in La Moneda is something that is achieved after having left hundreds of people in the streets blind, some also dead, and a situation of epic violence unmatched in recent history ”. To this he added that “the President cannot afford to be playing games or winking at anyone, in a very critical situation.”
The vice-dean of the UDD, Rodrigo Arellano, disagrees that that look is a nod to Rejection. “He is moving away from those who strongly defend the Constitution of 80 and, therefore, a more radical Rejection. He is situated in a more moderate Rejection and in an Approval with more institutional respect, which is different from winking at a sector. He is doing an act of realism, which seeks to reconcile the different souls that exist in his cabinet ”.
The gaze of the opposition
From the opposition, the reaction was greater, because, unlike some sectors of the ruling party, the words of the President generated immediate concern, so they took note of the matter. During the past week, there was a cross-sectional discussion and attempt to elucidate what President Piñera intended with the reiteration of the concept of Congress as a second option inscribed in the constitutional agreement.
And one of the reasons that they used to have set off the alarms has to do, in part, with the climate of distrust that currently exists, but mainly due to the attempts of different sectors of the ruling party that seek, in one way or another, to delegitimize the plebiscite.
Cases such as that of Senator RN Francisco Chahuán, who proposed a floor of 50 percent participation of the current register, or the deputy of his same party, Cristóbal Urruticoechea, who is close to José Antonio Kast, who spoke of a minimum of 10 million voters. To this is added the conviction that exists in the transversal command of the Rejection, in that the fewer people participate in the instance, the greater its degree of illegitimacy. A separate point is the Republican party, which from the start has classified the plebiscite as illegitimate.
Under this premise, there was talk of closing ranks to defend the holding of the unprecedented election, and being one of the interpretations that was handled that one could be trying to “twist the will” of the citizenry, is that He pointed out that any strange movement that they detect will have the response of trying to make the head of state pay the political costs, to position him as an “undemocratic President.”
There is real fear –the ranks of the opposition emphasized– that since none of the Rejection’s attempts to delegitimize the plebiscite has been successful, the strategy of the health milestone as the only reason to postpone it, will be functional in that sense.
[ad_2]
