On Sunday, Chile rejected a bill that sought to change the constitution that for more than 40 years was in force, when dictator Augusto Pinochet was still in power and whose need for reform was supported in 2019 by 80 percent of citizens.

However, the text drafted by the Constitutional Convention and which was supported by the current president Gabriel Boric caused deep divisions among Chileans, carrying out the refusal to a change in the political charter, an act that represents a hard blow for the country’s left wing. 

“The new text included fundamental changes in the matter of plurinational state, abortion, reduction of Congress to a single Chamber and reform of the social security system.”

The text generated strong discontent because many sectors in Chile considered that it violated many of their fundamental rights and that it went against the exercise of civil liberties.

One of the motives of the great rejection of the change of the Constitution is due to the fear on the part of the people that this proposal would completely annul the political opposition. The president of Chile assured that he accepted with humility the decision of the people and that Chile cannot continue to ignore the social outbreak of 2019, after the result of the Plebiscite was announced.  

The rejection of the measure was given with 61.88% of the votes compared to 38.1% of the approved votes, after more than 99% of the votes were counted, in a day with historical participation of more than 13 million voters.

According to opinion leaders, one of the causes for the proposal not to pass were some proposals that more than an extension to rights, citizens considered it as an excessive limitation of their own freedoms. 

Among other measures, the bill sought to eliminate the Senate and establish a Chamber of the Regions. The issue generated strong debate on behalf of sectors that interpreted it as a concentration of power. 

One of the most controversial points has to do with plurinationality. The text recognized the autonomy of indigenous peoples, but there were no clear limits regarding the relationship with the rest of the population. 

The recognition of the right to abortion generated much debate among citizens. Explicitly the text stipulated “the right to decide freely, autonomously and informed about one’s own body, about the exercise of sexuality, reproduction, pleasure and contraception.”