[This piece is a version of one of Chile's weekly newsletters, which is sent every Wednesday. If you want to subscribe, you can do sothrough this link.]
Hello dear readers,
Here we are for the first time: a newsletter from the editorial staff of EL PAÍS in Chile to your emails. Starting today and every Wednesday, we will send you an e-mail with a selection of the best chronicles, reports and interviews about Chile, to better understand the country.
And what better way to start than at this very newsworthy moment, just four days before the plebiscite for a new Constitution. On Sunday, December 17, some 15.4 million Chileans are called to return to the polls to define whether they are in favor or against a proposal for a Fundamental Charter. It is a text that was worked on in a Constitutional Council with a right-wing majority and, as seems obvious, the left and the ruling party of Gabriel Boric's government are against it. Although there is not exactly effervescence in the streets, everything indicates that with the compulsory voting system there will be high participation rates, around 13 million, as in the two previous elections. In this piece, we tell you why Chile is heading towards an uncertain outcome.
It will not be easy to interpret the results politically, because this referendum has many special elements. Who wins and who loses if one option or the other wins? Octavio Avendaño, a political scientist at the University of Chile, wrote a column about it. According to him, the right wing has already won, because if the "A" wins, it will have a constitution written to suit it and if it is rejected, it will keep the current one. Let us remember that the Republican Party of the extreme right, which led the process, was never in favor of replacing the current text and only joined this second attempt for the election of the Constitutional Council last May, when it won 23 of the 50 seats. Changing the law of laws was, rather, a historic demand of the left.
Among the contents of the new proposal that have generated the most interest are those related to women's rights. Journalist Maolis Castro interviewed Macarena Sáez, a Chilean lawyer and executive director of the women's rights division of Human Rights Watch (HRW) to elaborate on this. According to Sáez, "this proposed Constitution puts at risk Chile's progress in equality and non-discrimination of women."
In the same vein, former President Michelle Bachelet, the first executive director of UN Women, a columnist for EL PAÍS, wrote a column entitled: "Don't with anyone." There he explains why he will vote against and refers to an issue that has been especially current in the public debate: "The decriminalization of abortion on three grounds could be declared unconstitutional by the rule that establishes that 'the law protects the life of the unborn'; and by the rule that states that 'a child is any human being under 18 years of age,'" Bachelet writes in her monthly issue.
In Chile, since the former president appeared on the television campaign of En Contra, last Friday, there has been a heated discussion. Not only about her statements – the right and centrist sectors accused that some of Bachelet's arguments about women in the new Constitution were not true – but also about her role. For some analysts, in fact, its appearance would be counterproductive to the alternative it defends. In a campaign where voters are not so clear about which political sector is for one or the other option on the ballot, Bachelet's appearance clarifies the panorama: the left and Boric's government – which has tried not to completely turn its cards around – seek to reject the proposal.
To close the constitutional issue, we recommend two notes: this interview with the political scientist from the Catholic University, the Uruguayan David Altman. He says that Chile could have perfectly avoided the social outburst of 2019 and the four years of constitutional discussion if it had had mechanisms of direct democracy, which allow citizens to be heard and make decisions.
And this column by Alfredo Joignant, who writes every Monday in EL PAÍS. It is entitled: the end of a period.
Other Stories
Thank you for having us in your inbox. Here, below, we leave you the best journalistic pieces of the week worked on by the editorial staff of EL PAÍS in Chile.
* In this interview a few days after leaving office, conducted by journalists Antonia Laborde and Ana María Sanhueza, Comptroller Jorge Bermúdez remarks that the Boric government's lack of experience in the functioning of the public sector was "absolutely noticeable." He regretted that the left-wing administration did not see the Comptroller's Office as a collaborating body and that they did not attend the trainings, which were rescheduled four times.
*Rodrigo Topelberg, partner of the Sauers: beach, millions, an audio that all of Chile listened to and a friendship that ended badly. The puzzle that the Prosecutor's Office is trying to put together in the Luis Hermosilla case after a leak where bribe payments to public officials are acknowledged has as its centerpiece Topelberg, one of the first to have access to the recording. A profile worked by the journalist Antonieta de la Fuente.
* Carlos Henríquez on PISA 2022 result in Latin America: "It was not as catastrophic as projected". The coordinator of UNESCO's Latin American Laboratory for the Evaluation of the Quality of Education assures that the region's systems were resilient, there was support and families played a role. An interview with Maolis Castro.
* A literary confession by Agustín Squella. In his column, the Chilean academic defends the successful Chilean writer Benjamín Labatut. "I perceive a bad seed," he says of the envy of Chilean writers.
* Chile advances in the conservation of its rivers in Patagonia: Futaleufú and Puelo will be the first protected rivers. From the southern Chilean town of Futaleufú, journalist Antonieta de la Fuente tells the story behind the feat to protect two of the main channels of the end of the world.