Amandla! magazine | Issue 84

voting was mandatory. Turnout for the
2020 plebiscite was 55.5 percent. This time,
it was 88 percent.
Leftists hoped the change would bring
out poor and young voters who typically
sit out elections. They could be expected to
sympathise with the proposed constitution.
Boosted turnout, they felt, would prove
particularly impactful in Santiago’s largest
and densest comunas. After half-a-million
attended the apruebo campaign’s closing
rally the Thursday before the referendum,
optimism grew that the capital’s popular
districts would tilt the balance. Instead,
while voting did swell to historic levels, it
ultimately favored opponents of the new
constitution.
In sum, with larger layers of the
electorate compelled to vote, growing
swathes of ordinary Chileans manifested
their disapproval. Record turnout left no
room for doubt.

Voto castigo against the

radicals, not radical reform
This punishment at the polls, or voto
castigo, did not sanction the beneficial
social provision that the charter
guaranteed. What was rejected were the
dubious identity politics trimmings that
came wrapped in, along with their self-
congratulatory, and at times histrionic,
authors. So 40 percent of rechazo voters felt
the delegates generated distrust whereas
less than 12 percent feared public health,
education, pensions and housing infringed
on individual freedom and property
rights. In a post-defeat self-criticism,
an autonomist delegate described the
convention as “a series of performances
that affected the entity’s credibility.”
Chileans rebelled in 2019 against
the insecurity wrought by the country’s
savage labour markets and prevailing
commodification of social goods and
services. They voted overwhelmingly
in 2020 to replace the pro-market
constitution imposed under military rule.
This was a demand, however tacitly, for
foundational laws mandating guarantees
of universal health care, dignified pensions,
free and quality education, living wages and
labour protections, and public goods such
as water.
These rights made it into the draft, but
were drowned out by statements on gender
protections, ethno-national rights, and
care for mother nature. The overweening
emphasis on special prerogatives for
oppressed and marginalised sectors and
on lofty abstractions made it difficult to
persuade poor and working people that
the proposed charter would meet their
common basic needs.
Two months before the vote,

a majority felt delegates had given

insufficient attention healthcare,

education, and economic wellbeing. They

had devoted too much to attention to

“feminism” and “plurinationality”, or

recognition of indigenous nationhood

within the Chilean state.

It is not that Chileans object to gender

equality and indigenous rights. After all,

voters welcomed the gender parity and

indigenous quotas mandated in the 2020

plebiscite. More accurately, millions felt

the convention and its draft neglected

the broad demands behind the rebellion.

The extreme lopsidedness of constituent

politics promoted a false incompatibility

between universal protections and the

rights of oppressed groups.

Despite rising suspicion and

bitterness, Chile’s new Left failed to react

adequately. It operated on the conceit

that 2020’s 80 percent approval rendered

apruebo in the exit plebiscite all but

inevitable. But the rebellious and optimistic

mood of 2019 began fading when the new

Left assumed the task of translating mass

grievances into concrete and convincing

policy.

Covid hit, the economy and

employment tanked, and crime and

violence affected more and more working

people. As doubt grew and the opposition

launched concerted attacks on the new

government and on the constituent

assembly, backing for apruebo experienced

a steady decline.

Rather than redirect overwhelming

attention to the draft’s universalist social

provision, its defenders allowed opponents

to set the terms of the debate. When fake

news proliferated, the Left turned its

moralising into frenetic condemnations

of post-truth politics. When the right

denounced the convention’s radical

extravagance, instead of campaigning on

its social democratic elements, leftists

doubled down on a defense of noble identity

politics causes.

Recent polling reveals that among

apruebo supporters, majorities voted for

guaranteed “social rights in education,

health and housing” and the “structural

changes the country needs”. Only 10%

voted to achieve a “feminist and ecological

constitution” or a decentralised state, and

just 4% wished to grant the Mapuche more

autonomy. Meanwhile, large proportions

of rechazo voters cited general uncertainty

and indigenous autonomy as key reasons

for opposing the proposal.

Opposition to indigenous recognition

and rights should not be attributed to

overarching racism. The mistrust and

resentment promoted by the Left’s

moralistic promotion of indigenous rights

was not limited to the non-Mapuche

majority. In Lumaco, where half the

population is Mapuche, over 80% voted

rechazo. In Galvarino, 75 percent did

so even though the same proportion is

Mapuche. Alto Bio-Bio, site of community

fights against mega-dams, is 85 percent

Mapuche, yet only 28 percent approved the

charter.

It turns out plurinational recognition

and cultural rights are not essential

priorities even among the population

they are meant to benefit. Like others,

Perspectives for the left

“Wake up Chile” – the placard of a protestor in Santiago, the day after the new constitution was rejected. 62

percent declared that the draft on offer was not the new charter they wanted.