Chile’s Constituent based on the restoration of dictatorial plebiscite and a simulated majority.

(Interamerican Institute for Democracy) The Chilean constituent process is the result of violent events that took the government to an “agreement for peace and a new constitution” calling for an accelerated constitutional reform restoring the “plebiscite” that had been rescinded by President Lagos’ constitutional reform. At the plebiscite of 25 October of 2020 only 50.95% of those registered, voted and the outcome was presented as the vote of “78.28% of the population” or “the overwhelming majority of Chileans” when -in reality- it was only 39.61% of the Chilean electorate. Thus, Chile’s constituent is based on violent pressure, the restoration of the plebiscite of “Pinochet’s Constitution” and a minority of votes converted into a simulated majority of votes.

An analysis of the process through which Chile heads towards having a Constituent Assembly whose members will be elected this coming 11th of April, yields worrisome data regarding the similarity and repetition of the process and methodology successfully used in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador to wreck the institutional order and take these nations to greater situations of crises that the process was ostensibly supposed to prevent.

With the construction of the Bolivarian populist movement that was spread as 21st Century’s Socialism -today known as Castrochavism- after Hugo Chavez’s ascension to power in 1999 and his alliance with Fidel Castro, the use of Constituent Assemblies became the norm and the method. The same year -1999- Chavez swore over an “agonizing constitution” he took Venezuela through a constituent process. Chavez lost the Constitutional Referendum of 2007 and Nicolas Maduro established a new Constituent Assembly in 2017 in which -under pressure- only 41.53% of registered voters participated with a manipulated outcome that is, to this day, talked about.

In Bolivia, using this same system, following the toppling of October of 2003, they concocted “October’s agenda” with a call for a Constituent Assembly by scheming -through the use of Law 2631 that only permitted a partial reform of the constitution- the introduction of this Constituent Assembly’s figure (heretofore expressly prohibited). Evo Morales convened a Constituent Assembly and after persecuting, massacring, and exiling, changed -through Law 3941- the content of his constitutional reform for the invalid Constituent Assembly, held a referendum with manipulated voting, supplanted the Republic of Bolivia and established the “Plurinational State” that today is nothing more than a vote-catching dictatorship.

For Ecuador’s 2006 elections, candidate Rafael Correa -same as Chavez back in 1999- proposed the convening of a Constituent Assembly. He held a referendum on 15 April of 2007, labeling it a popular consultation, whose outcome he presented as having the approval of 81.72% of the voters that -when considering the number of registered voters- only represented around 50%. To approve the new Constitution, he held a referendum on 28 September of 2008 whose outcome he presented as having the approval of 63.93% of votes when, truthfully was less than 48% of the number of registered voters.

The one constant thing in Castrochavism’s plebiscites, referendums, elections, and vote-counting in general is “to construct absolute majorities from relative minorities” through the simple fallacy of presenting as final outcomes the percentages relative to votes and not relative to the number of registered voters in voters’ registration records. Strangely enough, this has been replicated in Chile with the data yielded from the plebiscite of 25 of October of 2020. An outcome officially presented and recorded by the news media as; “78% of citizens voted in favor of. . .” or “the result was an overwhelming 78% of the votes. . .” as reported by El Pais and the BBC, respectively.

Beyond the motives to have a Constituent Assembly in Chile, something worthy of a specific analysis on to itself, the method to get to the Constituent Assembly is also important because it is based on an accelerated constitutional reform through Law 21.200 published on 24 December of 2019 that replaces the “plebiscite” that was included in the Constitution known as Pinochet’s Constitution and that had been rescinded by the Constitutional Reform Law 20050 promulgated on 18 August of 2005 by President Ricardo Lagos. Law 20050, in 54 Articles, determines hundreds of reforms, including the rescinding of the “final article” referred to the plebiscite.

Let us not say that most of Chile’s citizens have decided to have a Constituent Assembly, because only 39.61% of registered voters have done so. There remain doubts over the legality of Chile’s Constituent Assembly process, because legitimacy is lacking with such a meager percentage. The impression remains that this is but a repetition of the Castrochavist methodology applied in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia of “simulating absolute majorities by manipulating minorities’ figures”.

Translated from Spanish by; Edgar L. Terrazas, member of the American Translators Association, ATA # 234680.