On Sunday, September 4th, Chileans were called to cast their vote on the new constitutional draft and while polls had shown a growing discontent with the new document, no one was expecting such an overwhelming rejection. The proposed draft, which was supposed to replace the current 1980 constitution, was voted against by 62% of the voters, according to Chile’s Electoral Service. This result now leaves Chile in a stalling position, with uncertainty on what is going to happen next. 

The process leading up to Sunday’s vote started in 2019 when substantial student-led protests broke out all over the country, expressing anger against inequality and social disintegration. Although Chile is considered an economic powerhouse in Latin America, the benefits of its dynamic market have been concentrated in the hands of the few, leaving profound frustrations for the lack of investments in health care, education, and infrastructure. The popular belief was that the current constitution, which dates to Pinochet’s dictatorship from 1973-1990, stood in the way of the necessary expansion of funding for social programs. There is also a powerful symbolic message in replacing a constitution which, although amended almost 60 times, was written by a dictatorial system with a new democratically redacted one.  

As a result of the 2019 protests, most political parties signed an Acuerdo por la paz social y la nueva constitucion, which led to a national referendum held in October 2020 to determine whether a new constitution should be drafted. 78% of the votes expressed support for a new national constitution, and a Constitutional Convention of 154 members was elected through popular vote in May 2021. The Constitutional Convention, formed by 69 unorthodox left independents, 37 center-right coalitions, 25 traditional center-left coalitions, 17 native people, and 4 center independents, was the first in the world to have an equal number of female and male members and to include such a high number of indigenous representatives. The constitutional process has been internationally praised as an example of democracy, but the resulting 178-page-long draft was still deemed unsatisfactory by the Chilean population.  

The draft contained a series of new elements, especially in welfare and social programs. It introduced wider social rights regarding social security, health, workers’ rights, and access to food and shelter. In addition to that, it recognised the state’s responsibility toward nature, stressing Chile’s “ecological” identity. It also ensured sexual parity in all state bodies and public companies and guaranteed sexual and reproductive rights. While these measures were already considered “too liberal” by conservatives, the section regarding indigenous rights was arguably the most contested. The constitutional draft, in fact, defined Chile as a “plurinational” state, proposing greater autonomy for indigenous territories and the recognition of a parallel indigenous legal justice system. But according to right-wing representatives, these guarantees towards indigenous people would result in divisions within the country. 

The left also voiced two main concerns. The first is that even though the Constitutional Convention was formed by a majority of progressive leftist representatives, Chile remains a conservative country and many people would not accept a constitution that would fundamentally make their country shift to the left. A constitution ought to represent the views of the people, and this draft clearly does not. In addition to that, the proposed draft seemed too ambitious. Implementing new social projects would result in a sharp increase in fiscal spending, but many are worried that Chile does not have the financial capacity to sustain these expenses. This means that the impact of the new constitution on the economy would have been negative, at least in the short to medium term.  

In general, the new proposed constitution received several critiques, and the counter is yet to decide on what happens next. President Gabriel Boric, who staked much of his political capital on this constitutional project, welcomed the outcome of the vote “with a lot of humility” and committed to putting efforts into “building a new constitutional itinerary alongside congress and civil society.” Thus, the journey toward a new constitution for Chile continues, although it remains unclear how the constitutional process will be altered to draw up a amended, improved draft.