/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/copesa/5DI7DZ3MKVATBBW4G2ZLBILVTE.jpg)
[ad_1]
Knowing in detail the recent history of Chile, the French economist and philosopher, Guy Sorman, does not have a hard time positioning himself on the dilemma facing Chile in the plebiscite of October 25. “I approve” would be your option to be Chilean, assures in Pulse interview, and although he does not like any of the alternatives that will be presented on the second ballot, because in his opinion the new Magna Carta should be written by experts, he favors “Mixed Convention”, since in his opinion having two parliaments would be ” crazy”.
In economic matters, he is not particularly fearful of a radical change to the Venezuelan style. From his point of view, the management of the economy is a pragmatic matter, which corresponds to define more to governments and parliaments of the moment. In any case, it highlights the importance of establishing the right to private property.
You closely follow the news from our country. Based on what you know, what would you vote in our place on October 25?
-If I were Chilean, I would say “I approve,” I would say yes to a new Constitution. Regarding the second question, I would answer “mixed convention”.
Why ‘Approve’?
-It is good for Chile in terms of putting an end to the period of (Augusto) Pinochet. The Constitution is closely connected to the Pinochet regime, so it is good for Chile to start again, with a new leaf. From a historical perspective, I think it is a good decision to change the Constitution and according to what I have seen in the polls there is a fairly broad agreement on it. Yes, it seems to me that there is a misunderstanding regarding what a Constitution means.
The left is trying to use the plebiscite to introduce political changes that have nothing to do with the Magna Carta. The Constitution are just rules that are established under the assumption that they should not be changed. That is where the confusion is, because the left is trying to use the plebiscite not only to change the Constitution, but also the economic and social model of Chile. It is important to explain to people what a Constitution is.
Is it part of a modern democracy to revise the Constitution from time to time?
-Everything depends on what kind of Constitution you have at any given time. For example, in the United States they have the same for the last 200 years, but as I pointed out, the one in Chile is linked to Pinochet because it was adopted during his regime. That said, it seems quite acceptable to me that they decide to change the Constitution today and start over, because it is a new country, it is a new democracy.
Why do you think the “mixed commission” option is better?
-If you choose an assembly it means that in Chile you will have two parliaments simultaneously, which is crazy, because there will be a legitimacy crisis. The Constitution has to be above politics and ideology, so the current Parliament should be asked to select a group of experts to write the Constitution. It should be a neutral process, if not, it would not be a constitution, but a kind of legal revolution. If you look at what has happened in other countries, except for revolutionary periods like the French one in 1791, constitutions are usually written by experts and then the text is proposed to the people, to be accepted or rejected in a plebiscite.
The problem with the second question of the consultation in Chile is that the result will not satisfy anyone. If a new assembly is elected it means that the whole Parliament will become irrelevant, otherwise it will be said that Parliament does not have legitimacy.
Defining the role of the State, the market and the rights of each citizen are part of the rules of the game that must be defined?
-All constitutions have two parts. The Constitution is a set of rules and in many countries, like the United States and France, you also have a bill of rights, which in general is abstract and does not go into detail. It is developed around consensuses such as human rights, gender equality, the guarantee by the State of health and education … They are general principles, because if you go into details, what you will do is put popular ideas that may make sense in the present, but they will not have the same meaning in the future.
Do you think there could be a change in the economic model based on a new Constitution?
-The economy is something really pragmatic and trying to reduce it so that it enters the Constitution is not very productive, because what looks good for today will not necessarily be the best tomorrow. What you can integrate into the Constitution is the right to private property; say, for example, that the State guarantees private property. That is a clear guideline in constitutional terms. Issues that go further, such as the tax system or definitions of salaries, are linked more to deliberations at the presidential and parliamentary level.
There are those who view this process with fear pointing to constitutional changes like the Venezuelan one. What do you think about that?
-The rules of the political game will be defined and there will be those who want to introduce their ideological preferences although these should not take place in the Constitution. That is where the problem arises.
A Constitution should not be left or right. The American, Spanish, French and German have that neutrality, where rules of the game are set that are accepted by all. That is why not much detail should be put into the constitutional text. Chile is the most democratic country in Latin America and it seems to me that its people do not understand that. I hope that this process does not destroy what has made the Chilean model successful and points to the real problem; the inequality that exists particularly in education, which is where income inequality is born. Therefore, if the Constitution says “equal access to education”, that is perfect from my point of view.
Is the free market at risk?
-Many Chileans do not understand the source of the success of the Chilean economy, which is basically private companies. So the key is that one of the principles of the Constitution is private property. With that, Chile cannot be transformed into a new Venezuela.
[ad_2]
