By Camila Vergara, political theorist, and journalist

Ed. Note: article was edited for length

Pinochet and his legacy have proven hard to kill. The 2022 draft constitution–the most progressive constitution ever written in terms of socio-economic rights, gender equality, indigenous rights, and the protection of nature–was rejected by almost 62% of voters in a national plebiscite on 4 September. How could Chileans, after rising up in 2019 to demand a new constitution, voting by a majority to initiate the constituent process, then reject the proposed draft? Why would they align with right-wing forces seeking to preserve the Pinochet constitution? This astonishing result surely demands a multi-causal explanation. Here I will focus on two of the most prominent ones: the right-wing disinformation campaign via traditional and social media, and the exclusion of the popular sectors from the constituent process.

Support for Rechazo (Rejection) was strongest in low-income municipalities, where turnout was higher than in upper-class neighborhoods. While in the 2020 plebiscite the opposition to the constituent process was led by the three wealthiest municipalities, this time the poorest neighborhoods turned out en masse to vote against the proposed draft. In contrast to 2020, voting was mandatory, which forced the popular sectors to cast a vote for fear of the fines of abstention. Turnout increased from 50% to 86%; of the 5.4 million new votes cast, 96% opted to reject. In total, the draft constitution received only 4.8 million votes – one million less than voted in favor of redrafting two years earlier. This was not only a vote against the new constitutional text. It was also a rejection of Gabriel Boric’s administration and its parties. Apruebo (Approval) was supported by roughly the same number of people that voted for Boric in the runoff against a far-right candidate in December 2021, suggesting that he has been unable to expand his constituency since taking office.

At least a million dollars were poured into the month-long campaign to raise awareness about the draft constitution. About 90% of these funds were spent by the Rechazo camp, comprising the right-wing parties, parts of the Christian Democrats, and a newer centrist coalition, bolstered by the spread of social media disinformation as well as the distribution of fake and doctored copies of the draft constitution.

Exit polls revealed that many people were confused about what the plebiscite was about; some even thought that by voting to reject they were abolishing the Pinochet constitution. There were no official campaign adverts, nor leaflets sent to people’s homes, nor in-person information sessions; all the outreach was done by political parties, NGOs, or volunteers. It is unclear why the Boric administration did such a poor job informing the electorate on such a crucial matter.

The endless stream of TV shows featuring politicians and self-styled intellectuals spreading disinformation about the draft surely had an impact. Among the most pervasive falsehoods were that the new constitution would abolish homeownership for the working classes, allow late-term abortions, and open the door for the secession of indigenous territories.

The evangelical churches, which recently formed an alliance with the far-right Republican Party, had a strong presence, approximately 27% of the population. In February, before the article on gender rights was even approved by the Convention, representatives from more than 2,700 churches in the Araucanía region called on their communities to reject the draft, citing abortion as their main concern.

Perhaps the most controversial and weaponized topic was that of indigenous rights. Although the text merely followed the commitments established earlier on indigenous rights, ratified in 2008 but never implemented, the right-wing politicians and pundits wove a narrative in which indigenous peoples would gain the ability to dismember the country. 

According to a recent report, at least 36 organizations not subject to electoral controls, and therefore not mandated to disclose their funding, spent $130,000 advertising on Facebook and Instagram; 97.4% of these adverts pushed to reject the draft constitution. This helped consolidate the narrative that the Convention was a political circus that had drafted a sloppy, unprofessional document.

Three weeks before the plebiscite, the parties of the governing coalition began to set out the changes they intended to pursue if the draft constitution was approved. Attempting to placate the parties on the right and those of the former Concertación (coalition of the center-left), Boric pledged to limit the rights of indigenous people, stressing that their input on national policy issues would be non-binding. He also reassured the establishment that the current neoliberal framework, in which basic services such as healthcare, education and pensions are largely provided by private companies, would remain. Instead of pushing to reform these dictatorship-era systems, Boric agreed to preserve them. His announcement that he would seek to reform the constitution, even before it was put to a popular vote, compounded the impression that it was not fit. 

Chile now finds itself in an awkward position, with no clear path to resolve its impending socio-political crisis. By voting in favor of initiating a constituent process, Chileans indirectly rejected the current 1980 Constitution. Yet by rejecting the new constitutional text, the process set in motion by the November Pact has officially been terminated. So, what will happen next?

Before the plebiscite, President Boric vowed to call a new constituent process if the proposed draft was rejected. However, the only way to start such a process is through a new constitutional ruling, which requires a supermajority in Congress. Given that conservative forces control the Senate, convening a constituent assembly with adequate mechanisms of popular participation seems impossible. It is likely that Boric will try to establish another Convention based on rules negotiated from a position of weakness. This will be a party-led process, dominated by ‘experts’ and insulated from popular pressures. Pundits are already blaming the few independents in the Convention for the draft’s defeat. Chileans are again taking to the streets to demand their own constituent process: one in which there are no backroom negotiations, and the people themselves have the power to make binding decisions.

Source: SIDECAR, 2/9/22