One year ago, Chileans took their anger over inequality and injustice to the streets, insisting that redressing the nation’s deep structural problems would require more than just reformism. In fact, protesters demanded an entirely new Chilean constitution, with more rights and better social protection.
Soon, they will find out whether the rest of the country agrees with them.
On October 25, Chile will hold a referendum to ask voters two questions: should Chile convene a constituent assembly to write a brand-new constitution? If so, who should be involved in this process, an assembly comprising half congressional representatives and half citizens, or a purely citizen assembly?
Experts predict voters will vote in favor of a new constitution written by their fellow Chileans.
Our research on democratic governments and women’s political participation explains why Chile’s referendum is, in fact, a big deal.
Countries usually only write new constitutions in the aftermath of war or when transitioning away from dictatorships. And constitutional assemblies composed solely of citizens are practically unheard of. Indeed, Chile shows what frustrated people in democracies can achieve when they rise up.
A tale of two Chiles
Chile’s current constitution dates back to the time of Augusto Pinochet, the military dictator who governed the South American country from 1973 to 1990.
Pinochet lost power in a 1988 referendum, highlighting the transformative potential of ballot initiatives in Chile. But even as Chile transitioned to free and fair elections, the Generalissimo’s legacy persisted in the country’s restrictive, dictatorship-era constitution. It defined an electoral system that limited the power of the left...
Search
