New Constitution

Here is the link to new constitution:
This is an official site, and the constitution is now completely finalized, won´t change.
EDIT July 5th: If you want to read on specifics topics, but not all, note that the table of contents is at the end of the document, not the start.

I read somewhere it´s 50,000 words which is a smallish novel, so it will take hours rather than minutes or days to read it. The PDF is 178 pages.

Here is a link to the current constitution: Constitución Política. Capítulo I: Bases De La Institucionalidad - Senado - República de Chile

6th July is start of campaign:
5th August is start of TV adverts
4th September is actual vote day
Source:Apruebo o Rechazo: quiénes podrán votar en el plebiscito por una nueva Constitución | 24horas

Recent thread: Not long to go - a prediction

This election is an obligatory vote, with fines. I can´t find a definitive, explicit answer to the question of whether foreigners living in Chile are also obliged to vote. However it does say in a couple of places that everyone live in Chile has to vote and foreigners are not listed as an exception. Therefore, it seems to be implied that foreigners who have the right to vote as a result of 5 years residency are also required to vote in this one. If you have less than 5 years residency in Chile, you won´t be able to vote, even if you want to.

That´s how it looks after reading a few news articles and some official sites, but I can´t find an absolutely certain answer. If anyone has a certain answer with a source, let us know.

Here are my thoughts about the old constitution, which is going to be a copy and paste of what I posted on All Chile forum in 2019 after I read the constitution then:

It was mostly fine, but there is a faint whiff of the military dictatorship era about in a very slightly bad way at times. Keep in mind that I´m writing about the <5% I disagree with it or am at least skeptical of, cherry picking what seemed to me the worst, and ignoring the >95% that seemed fine, or just dull:

Quotes from the constitution in italics.
My thoughts in underline.

“La familia es el núcleo fundamental de la sociedad”.
I don´t see why this has to be the case and why they felt the need to put this right at the start. It is the individual that´s important.

“Son emblemas nacionales la bandera nacional, el escudo de armas de la República y el himno nacional”
What if there was a popular movement to have a different song_ Not sure that this should be in the constitucion. (EDIT: Just reading the new constitution as this has been copy and pasted in exactly the same as Articulo 13 so this point is irrelevant to the question as to which constitution to vote for.)

“El resguardo del orden público durante los actos electorales y plebiscitarios corresponderá a las Fuerzas Armadas y Carabineros del modo que indique la ley”
Military at the elections. Hm. Debatable.

“La ley protege la vida del que está por nacer”
This is pro life doctrine written into the constitucion even though there is healthy and complex pro life vs pro choice debate. This is concerning, since depending on how you interpret that, it could be seen to disqualify abortions at a very early stage, inspite of the fact that the consensus of science and reason has to be that there is no life present yet in the early weeks. It seems inappropriate to write this into the constitucion.

Ch 3, Article 19, 13 “Las reuniones en las plazas, calles y demás lugares de uso público, se regirán por las disposiciones generales de policía
”I don´t agree that police should be able to have too much control over public gatherings. The freedom to protest is an important right.

“Los chilenos tienen el deber fundamental de honrar a la patria, de defender su soberanía y de contribuir a preservar la seguridad nacional y los valores esenciales de la tradición chilena”
Let people decide how patriotic they want to be - don´t force it on to them.

Ch 3, Article 22 “El servicio militar y demás cargas personales que imponga la ley son obligatorios en los términos y formas que ésta determine.
Los chilenos en estado de cargar armas deberán hallarse inscritos en los Registros Militares, si no están legalmente exceptuados”

This seems to imply obligatory military service, which I disagree with.

“El Presidente de la República durará en el ejercicio de sus funciones por el término de cuatro años y no podrá ser reelegido para el período siguiente”
I have never been in agreement with this. World leaders often hit their prime in their second term when they are more experienced. This rule disqualifies someone who is doing an amazing job and great ratings, and forces them to be replaced by someone mediocre.

Ch 4, Article 43 “Por la declaración del estado de asamblea, el Presidente de la República queda facultado para suspender o restringir la libertad personal, el derecho de reunión y la libertad de trabajo. Podrá, también, restringir el ejercicio del derecho de asociación, interceptar, abrir o registrar documentos y toda clase de comunicaciones, disponer requisiciones de bienes y establecer limitaciones al ejercicio del derecho de propiedad.
Por la declaración de estado de sitio, el Presidente de la República podrá restringir la libertad de locomoción y arrestar a las personas en sus propias moradas o en lugares que la ley determine y que no sean cárceles ni estén destinados a la detención o prisión de reos comunes. Podrá, además, suspender o restringir el ejercicio del derecho de reunión.
Por la declaración del estado de catástrofe, el Presidente de la República podrá restringir las libertades de locomoción y de reunión. Podrá, asimismo, disponer requisiciones de bienes, establecer limitaciones al ejercicio del derecho de propiedad y adoptar todas las medidas extraordinarias de carácter administrativo que sean necesarias para el pronto restablecimiento de la normalidad en la zona afectada.
Por la declaración del estado de emergencia, el Presidente de la República podrá restringir las libertades de locomoción y de reunión.”

The worst thing I´ve found so far. Just some super scary, freedom restricting, scary shit. Too much power concentrated in the Presidency.

Very interesting survey out from CADEM here:

34% currently for Apruebo, 51% for Rechazo
Given how accurate CADEM was in the elections last year, I think we can be pretty confident that Rechazo would win if the election was held tomorrow.

However, we also saw huge swings in voting intentions last year, and the debate hasn´t really even started yet.

But…another interesting data point in the CADEM study says that of the people who said Rechazo in the survey 80% of those are completely decided.

Anyone with the right to vote and can pay the fine for not voting, would be an idiot to stand down on this most historic vote since the one that ended the military government.

I will be able to vote for the first time (assuming they let me without a pase) and it will be Rechazo from me!

Check your electoral status here.

Nearer to P-day, this should show where you go to vote.

1 Like

Read the constitution (although skimmed some of the dull parts in the second half).

It defends the people rather than the structures of power and order.

I am surprised how far some of it goes. I suppose a lot of the independent, unaffiliated candidates that got in actually turned out to lean left?

However since Chile, with its Isapres and weak public schools and low taxes, is currently a right-wing country, a left-wing constitution is not necessarily a bad thing since it may even things out over time.

Implementing this constitution will take years. Rejecting it will immediately start a debate about whether and when to go for a third alternative since the people already voted massively to draw up a new constitution.

There are a few too many vaguely worded things that might imply something really important (and bad), or could just be some wordy rhetoric. I may share a few examples later.

It seems to be an overreach of power. A lot of the things that are in this constitution are things that ought to have been dealt with by referendum or the senate in my view.

It is a shame that we have to vote on over 400 points all together rather than voting on at least some of the major points separately.

Here are 4 random noteworthy things that to me are not good or bad just worth noting. I´ll share some thoughts on good and bad features tomorrow or another day.

  1. Looks like fireman get paid in this constitution.
  2. After 5 years foreigners become citizens, in theory a foreigner could even become President by the look of it.
  3. This constitution increases the responsibilities of the state and the provisions the state will give to the people…more welfare…however I suspect this will require higher taxes, possibly by a lot.
  4. Quotes of at least 50% women in this and that, implies there can be >50% women but not >50% men…will help make a more equal society in the short term, but in the long term such quotas may become unhelpful.

Wait low taxes? What are these low taxes you speak of? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

Im still puzzled on the 5 year voting thing. Lets say someone has been living in chile for nearly
7 years…continuously.

But that 7 years is composed of:

6 months on tourist visa extended once in country
1.5 year in tramite for investor visa
1 year of investor visa
1 year in tramite for subject to contract work visa
1 year of subject to contract work visa
2 years in tramite for extension (prorroga) of subject to contract visa

And still in tramite to this day.

They have physically been resident in chile for that entire time…but excluding the tramites only 2 years of cumulative temp residence visas

Asking for a very sad and frustrated friend who wants to vote if they can, but also doesnt want to get fined

Could they just search for their RUT in that thing Feargle posted? And see what comes up? Not sure if that works or not?

And as to the taxes, I was referring to the fact that that the % of salary being paid in taxes is lower in Chile compared to UK, US, Europe.

Good points of this constitution. at least to my personal preference.

Level of Presidential power is better judged than the previous constitution
Eco friendly
Water rights
Animal rights mentioned
Access to nature
State ownership of minerals/mines (however the constitution doesn´t seem to clarify what happens with existing contracts and rights)
Popular petitions can lead to congress debates or changes of constitution
No senate

The last one is perhaps the big one. Two houses of congress means that in practice the 40% gets to block the wishes of the 60%, it is a block to progress… a resistance to change…a mechanism for the defence of the rich and powerful.
BUT…wait a minute…there will still be two houses of congress in this new constitution with a chamber of the regions…but they only get to vote certain things so I guess it will be easier to get major legislation passed now?

Bad points of this constitution (or things I don´t like or aren´t clear to me)

  1. Says Chile is composed of “diverse nations” but then says that Chile “forma un
    territorio único e indivisible.” Then it says that “indigenous nations have a right to self government”. What does it all mean?

  2. The right to “derecho a decidir de forma libre, autónoma e informada sobre el propio cuerpo” Is the reference to “propio cuerpo” meant to legalize abortion? Vague: should be clearer.

  3. 23 “Ninguna persona que resida en Chile y que cumpla los requisitos establecidos en esta Constitución y las leyes podrá ser desterrada, exiliada, relegada ni
    sometida a desplazamiento forzado.”
    Does this mean illegal immigrants can´t be removed from Chile? If so, I disagree. And why can´t they say whether or not that´s what they mean.

  4. “El Sistema de Educación Superior estará conformado por las universidades,
    los institutos profesionales, los centros de formación técnica, las academias
    creadas o reconocidas por el Estado y las escuelas de formación de las
    policías y las Fuerzas Armadas. Estas instituciones considerarán las
    necesidades comunales, regionales y nacionales. Tienen prohibida toda
    forma de lucro.”
    Does this mean Universities can´t be run for profit? If so, I disagree, at least for now. At the very least that´s too much change too fast if nothing else.

  5. Too much blah blah about how x, y, z groups have a,b,c rights. Actually agree with it all but could have been said in 5 sentences rather than 5 pages.

  6. Welfare.
    “La ley establecerá un sistema de seguridad social público, que otorgue
    protección en caso de enfermedad, vejez, discapacidad, supervivencia,
    maternidad y paternidad, desempleo, accidentes del trabajo y enfermedades
    profesionales, y en las demás contingencias sociales de falta o disminución
    de medios de subsistencia o de capacidad para el trabajo. En particular,
    asegurará la cobertura de prestaciones a quienes ejerzan trabajos
    domésticos y de cuidados.”
    Yikes! All very good in theory but is now the right time to do all this? And is it really up to a constitution to say all that? Does that sentence mean a huge welfare state or just that the government has to chuck out a few bones to the needy from time to time? Could be clearer…again!

  7. 46.3 “Se prohíbe el despido arbitrario.” Disagree. I think you should be able to fire someone without giving a reason. Maybe you should be required to pay x months of salary but any party in a relationship, whether it´s marriage, friendship, or professional, surely has the right to end that relationship.

  8. "“El Estado garantiza el trabajo decente” Great idea when it´s the year 2040 and Chile is rich but in 2022? Be realistic.

  9. It says that workers have the right to strike. But wait, does that mean you can´t fire someone for going on strike? If so, I disagree. If not, say that. I don´t like strikes and I don´t think the constitution should be encouraging it.

  10. “Las trabajadoras y los trabajadores, a través de sus organizaciones sindicales,
    tienen el derecho a participar en las decisiones de la empresa”
    Yikes, I guess a communist wrote that one! I don´t agree with that one…I think if they specified for companies above a certain very large size it would be a good law.

  11. “Los recintos privados son inviolables. La entrada, el registro o el allanamiento
    solo se podrán realizar con orden judicial previa” This may make it harder to fight crime. Clearly the police shouldn´t be smashing down doors without a court order very often but I think there has to be more of a balance here.

  12. 110 “Ninguna persona puede ser arrestada o detenida sino por orden judicial, salvo que fuera sorprendida en delito flagrante.” This seems over the top. May make it too hard for the police.

  13. “La persona arrestada o detenida deberá ser puesta a disposición del tribunal
    competente en un plazo máximo de veinticuatro horas.”
    Disagree with this, what if there is strong evidence of a very serious crime, and no available tribunal.

  14. 254.3
    “La ley determinará el número de representantes regionales que se elegirán
    por región, el que deberá ser el mismo para cada región y en ningún caso
    inferior a tres.” This is probably bad as it will give too much power to a minority in low population areas, rather like the US senate.

Chile minimum wage is 380k a month. The monthly payroll/social tax rate on that is 24% with the employee portion nearly 20%!!.

However the US…it is only 7.65% for the employee portion of payroll/social tax.

So how is 3x higher monthly tax in Chile “low taxes” compared to the US?

A lot more bad than good from the two lists. Some of the goods you listed id kick down to the bads.

The only for sure goods I see are:

Limiting Presidential power
Eco friendly
Animal rights
Access to nature

The rest are various levels of loaded firearms…from a derringer to fully automatic assault rifles.

Now that we have seen what they came up with it looks like a big fat cautionary tale with the lesson being: They never should have been allowed to do this.

The incompetence and lack of foresight and wisdom is utterly staggering. They are entirely out of their depth.


1 Like

I don´t want to get into the argument about taxation any further. It´s going off on a tangent.

For the constitution, I have more bad than good but I think some of the bad is minor points and uncertainty rather than bad and I think the good point about the senate is possibly weighted as much as many of the bad points combined.

I also have almost all bad points on the old constitution so it still looks like the new might be relatively better than the old…lesser of two evils?

But WOW I was stunned when I read it. This is huge. Way too much to take in in the 5 hours I spent reading it. Virtually guaranteed to be some huge stuff in there I didn´t fully absorb.

Very consequential.

I think I need to see some more debates, opinions, adverts etc. Probably won´t decide my vote this month.

In my case, when I qualified, I received a letter indicating I could vote and my voting location. They should also check the Servel site with their RUT, there is an option for checking your status. I think it was posted recently.

Also recheck your voting location (which is not showing yet) as there will be changes for some especially the tercer edad group from what I’ve heard.

Need to be registered to read the whole article, but the title says it all.

The complete text has been reproduced within this Reddit discussion, which however glosses over the existential threat to Chile as a nation embodied within this mamarracho.