[ad_1]
At the end of its mandate, the constitutional body must approve by 2/3 the new drafted text? In recent days, that question has resounded in the ruling ranks after the government made public its concern about the voting regulations that the possible convention should create in the event of the approval in the plebiscite of October 25.
On Sunday, on Channel 13, the Minister of the Segpres, Christian Monckeberg, noted that the final text of a new Magna Carta “It should be approved by 2/3 at a convention.” And yesterday, the government spokesman minister, Jaime BellolioHe pointed out that the possible new Fundamental Charter must be “coherent” and avoid that it is “disjointed”.
But the discussion regarding how the voting regulations of the possible convention should be and if the entire constitutional text should be voted by 2/3 – a “double ratification” as it has been called – is not new. Last year, a few days after the Agreement of November 15 that enabled the constituent process, the then senator RN Andres Allamand he questioned precisely this point.
“No one ever said that when there is no agreement that means that it becomes a simple law, it was exactly the opposite (…) If there is no agreement, the convention fails, there is no ratification plebiscite and the current Constitution governs,” said Allamand el November 20 on radio Duna, something that caused the senator and president of the PS, Álvaro Elizalde, and the deputy of Social Convergence, Gabriel Boric, they will place it in the corridors of Congress.
A few days ago, he was the former senator of the UDI Pablo Longueira who returned on the subject in a text that he sent to the press and his followers. “It is so obvious that the regulation must contemplate that also at the end of the convention the complete text must be approved by 2/3, that it was not necessary to put it in the constitutional reform, since, otherwise, there will be neither regulation nor any rule that meets that quorum. If this happens, there will be no constitutional proposal and the current Constitution will remain in force. This is also expressly stated by the constitutional reform ”.
However, in the constitutional reform there is no allusion to what will happen in the event of not reaching an agreement in the regulations. For this reason, the issue has generated criticism in the opposition, from where they argue that the ruling party is reviving a debate that was already settled in the talks on November 15 and that this would be a “political maneuver” since the ruling party would not reach 2/3 of the constituents.
In La Moneda, meanwhile, the issue has been discussed between President Piñera and the ministers of the political committee. In Palacio there is concern about the issue of regulations and the first thing for them is to clarify what each sector understands with the issue of 2/3.
Constituent process: The “great battle” that Piñera has in his sights
In La Moneda they transmit that there are several alternatives: that the end of the text be voted consistently by 2/3; vote as if it were a bill in general by 2/3 and then in particular by the same quorum. That, say the same sources, is the first thing to solve.
In the Executive they emphasize that what cannot happen is what, in their opinion, certain sectors of the opposition promote to vote article by article. That shows, they say, “that they want a vindictive Constitution and that would lead to the failure of the convention.”
In that sense, in the Palace they maintain that they want to avoid blockages during the discussion of the subject. In the government they emphasize that what interests them is that the mechanism be majority and coherent, which does not necessarily imply that it is ratified in the end by 2/3, but that it can be another formula that allows these minimum floors.
The alternatives: create commissions that agree everything by 2/3 and then go to the room and get approved again by 2/3; vote the whole project in general with contents in each chapter by 2/3 and then modifications in particular by 2/3.
The only thing that the political figures who participated in the November 15 talks agree on is that the issue of regulations and double ratification was discussed. But from there, there are two interpretations of what was spoken.
Several name the senator of Evópoli, Felipe Armario, as the one who raised the idea that the new text be ratified by 2/3 and also that Deputy Boric pointed out that this should be settled by the conventioneers themselves when discussing the regulation. Finally, the position was imposed that the regulation should be approved by 2/3, but nothing related to a possible double ratification. The opposition said at that minute that the exit plebiscite was the final ratification and not the convention.
“I am struck by the fact that the government resumes this debate when the Executive was not part of the talks or the final agreement of November 15. That day, Senator Kast expressly proposed a 2/3 ratification rule of the new text and that was not accepted. So much so that the agreement does not establish that voting modality “commented Senator Elizalde.
For his part, Senator Kast noted that “Clearly our position is that the text in general has to be approved by 2/3 because it is the way to ensure that the different parties have to agree. Ultimately, it is ensured that it is not implemented that one party wants to block the other, but that it is available to build a consensus text ”.
The issue was revived in the ruling ranks after several recalled the fears that arose after November 15. In private, right-wing leaders have indicated that they fear that the opposition will make alliances on certain points and end up “approving anything.” For this reason, they have taken up a discourse that refers to the fact that a text must be approved as consensual as possible and without impositions from any sector.
Likewise, the president and senator of RN, Rafael prohens, recognized that the double ratification is an interpretation of the ruling party of the November agreement. “This is not in the agreement of November 15 but it is the reading that we have from that minute. This has to be ratified but what does it mean, are we going to vote article by article? The text must be approved by all the constituents according to what was discussed at the time, “he commented.
Along the same lines, from the UDI they indicated that it is “fundamental” that the new text be ratified at the end of the convention by 2/3. “The spirit of the November agreement is that the new Constitution is everyone’s home and for this to be the case, a 2/3 vote must be reached, reaching an agreement between the groups that think differently. And that not only refers to each of the articles, but to the full text. Thus, we are going to have to establish a mechanism in which articles are voted by 2/3, but also the complete text is voted by 2/3”Said Senator UDI, Ena Von Baer.
From the opposition, meanwhile, they criticized the sayings of Ministers Monckeberg and Bellolio and accused of interference in the powers that are proper to the convention.
“If I win the approval, the mandate to ratify the final text of the constituent process is the people of Chile through the exit plebiscite by simple majority, not the Convention. This is absolutely clear in the approved constitutional reform and is an essential guarantee that there will be no perverse incentives to boycott the deliberation by threatening not to ratify the final text. The right will try to raise it in the regulation discussion but there will be no majority for that”Said Deputy Boric.
Likewise, today the Broad Front released a statement in which they accuse a “serious interference with the constitutional autonomy that an eventual convention elected by the citizenship, whether mixed or constitutional, must have.”
For his part, the president of the DC, Fuad ChahínHe commented that the ruling party is raising this debate with the intention of confusing and added that his party is working on a proposed regulation. “When you can’t win, it’s confusing, it’s an old adage. Those who know that Approval is going to win are trying to confuse and mess up the process. This was long debated and we said that this was not acceptable. I proposed that this remain to be resolved in the internal regulations and it was so agreed. When you negotiate a point, you look for a solution, and you reach an agreement, you cannot try to change the rules of the game at the last minute. That seems to me to be not very serious, it is an erratic attitude politically, “commented the helmsman DC.
Likewise, the deputy and president of the DR, Catalina Perez, commented that “It is a tremendous impudence to try to interfere with the constitutional autonomy of the body that will draft our new ConstitutionDespite Chile’s efforts, we go because this process is not carried out. Here there are democratic agreements that do not allow for misleading interpretations ”.
Meanwhile, the president of the PR, Carlos Maldonado, He pointed out that the right wing is “playing a very dangerous game” by proposing to block the approval of the regulation. “What happens is that the right wing is so afraid of democracy, that it does not even trust the norms that will be approved by two thirds of the constituents, and wants a second final vote, to once again have the possibility of exercising the veto to which they have become accustomed during the last 30 years, “added Maldonado.
[ad_2]
