[ad_1]
Calls were going, calls were coming. The project of the communist deputy Camila Vallejo on November 16 was far from going unnoticed. Together with Karol Cariola (PC), Cristina Girardi (PPD), Pamela Jiles (PH), Camila Rojas (Comunes), Alejandra Sepúlveda (FRVS), Guillermo Teillier (PC) Hugo Gutiérrez (PC) and Tomás Hirsch (Humanist Action), It sought, among other points, that the Constituent Convention was not tied to agreeing on the points of the new Constitution by the approval of 2/3 of the members.
“(The project) enables the Convention to define its own quorums and mandates that there be an exercise of permanent participation in the process. It gives more efficiency and shortens the deadlines for the drafting of the new Constitution “, Camila Vallejo, Deputy PC.
And it is that although several of those who signed the political agreement of November 15 – which had this point as a central aspect, because it was the one that allowed Chile Vamos to accept a plebiscite – considered that it was a good measure and, otherwise, quite popular; in good Chilean, he messed up their chicken coop even more. It had been quite difficult for the opposition to lead more cordial dialogues, but the fact that representatives of parties that signed “the pact for peace” a year ago now sponsored “changing the rules of the game,” altered the scenario.
“We must not increase people’s mistrust of political institutions. People voted widely in a plebiscite with established rules. They voted for an established number of constituents and for quorums ”, Rodrigo Delgado, Minister of the Interior.
The president of the DC, Fuad Chahin, was one of the first to accuse the coup. Pointed at Twitter that “the rules of the game are never changed in the middle of the game” and called the motion “unacceptable”. He even said that the initiative followed a “Chavista logic.”
The commotion in the bloc was such that even another of the parliamentarians who had joined, Maya Fernández (PS), ended up giving up “for unity.” He ruled out pressure, but even so from the store they did not see with good eyes that he stamped his signature. They think he “rushed”.
From the PPD, Girardi ruled out replicating that “gesture” and insisted that the constituent body must have all the powers, including being able to modify the quorums. This, despite the fact that the head of the bench, Raúl Soto, saw the measure as “risky.”
“We would all like a quorum of less than 2/3, but it is what was agreed and based on that the citizens voted to approve it on October 25. It is risky to change the rules of the game at this point, because the right could ask for For example, change the blank page and follow the Pinochet Constitution where the quorum is not reached, “he said.
But why all the fuss with the matter? Within the communities, more than the background (which by the way not everyone shares), it bothered that it was the PC, through a close “face” like that of Vallejo, to present the project. Because they were not in the agreement, because they made talks to add more signatures, and because they believe that they are resorting to “dangerous” maneuvers to lift their presidential candidate, Daniel Jadue, who could be losing space after the onslaught of “La Abuela.”
They see the motion as a way to destabilize the scene, because in any case they estimate that they would not have the votes to make it law (it needs 2/3 approval), but it made them “stagger.”
In the midst of the hypotheses, in any case, the president of the DR, Catalina Pérez, insisted that the agreements are respected. Although in the community several were “tempted”, as private representatives commented, the helmsman stressed that “the entry and exit plebiscites, the quorum of ⅔ and the blank sheet, were the structural elements of the agreement that allowed the compromise, between actors who think differently, to make viable the demand to end Pinochet’s legacy and achieve a new Constitution. “
Without prejudice to that, he added, “it seems legitimate to me that there are other visions and sectors that wish to reopen that debate.”
[ad_2]
