SANTIAGO- The proposal for the new Constitution of Chile, which will be submitted to a plebiscite to approve this Sunday, contains several controversial points, but the one that has undoubtedly raised the most doubts and most rejection is the recognition of this country as a Plurinational State.
The campaign for rejection, which has the advantage according to most polls, has made its refusal of plurinationality one of its main banners. According to the groups that call for a vote against the project, this will bring greater division to the South American country, which has been experiencing a conflict with the Mapuche people for years.
The proposal has provoked strong opposition both from the conservative right that defends the status quo and from the most radical indigenous people, who demand their own independent nation. 12.8% of the 20 million Chileans identify themselves as indigenous.
Below we explain this concept and why it became one of the key points of the campaigns for the exit plebiscite, in which 15 million Chileans are obliged to participate this Sunday, September 4.
What does the proposed Constitution say about the Plurinational State?
The proposed new constitution recognizes that the Chilean State “is multinational, intercultural, regional and ecological”, from article 1.
In article 5, the proposal indicates that “Chile recognizes the coexistence of various peoples and nations within the framework of the unity of the State.” The recognized indigenous peoples and nations are the Mapuche, Aymara, Rapanui, Lickanantay, Quechua, Colla, Diaguita , Chango, Kawésqar, Yagán, Selk’nam and others that may be recognized in the manner established by law.
If this constitutional text is approved, the Chilean State will have the duty to “respect, promote, protect and guarantee the exercise of self-determination, collective and individual rights.”
In addition, it must guarantee their participation “in the exercise and distribution of power, incorporating their political representation in popularly elected bodies at the community, regional and national levels.”
What other countries have recognized plurinationality in their constitution?
Ecuador and Bolivia, two South American countries that wrote new constitutions in the first decade of the 21st century, also point out that these countries are Plurinational States.
Why does it generate so much rejection?
Critics argue that granting such autonomy to indigenous people and allowing them to be guided by special justice will make them “privileged” citizens.
“I agree with multiculturalism, of course I do (…) But that they divide us into different nations, different laws, which are not the same for everyone, that seems aberrant to me,” he told AFP in an act of campaign Isabel Rodríguez, a 42-year-old account executive who defines herself as “middle class.”
Because it is important?
Hilary Hinen, from the Diego Portales University School of History, assured that the constitutional proposal is a “great advance regarding the relationship between the State and the native peoples of Chile.”
“It is undoubtedly very important within this process (of dialogue); it offers tools that we currently do not have and without a doubt, plurinationality would be a great contribution to precisely trying to find political ways” to face the current conflict, which is political, he said.
For Antonia Rivas, a lawyer and doctor in Anthropology, the recognition of indigenous peoples was a necessary step for Chile. “No constitution in the history of Chile has recognized indigenous peoples,” he said in an interview with Expansión.
Rivas points out that since 1990, the year Chile returned to a democratic regime, multiple bills have been introduced to give recognition to the original peoples of Chile, but these have not worked.
Regarding the recognition of legal pluralism, the specialist points out that it is not a privilege or the creation of a parallel legal system for the one that currently works in Chile, but a matter of perspective.
“Legal pluralism is something that exists in many parts of the world, not only in Chile, it is not an invention, it is something that is recognized in the international treaties signed” by the country, the specialist pointed out.
This principle recognizes the existence of a system of rights and legal systems, and refers to the traditional forms of the original peoples for the resolution of conflicts and controversies.
“The limit of these indigenous processes are human rights. Finally, the decisions made under this principle are likely to be reviewed by the Supreme Court”, said Rivas.
What do the indigenous peoples say?
The most radical indigenous people also do not believe that plurinationality is the answer to the historical claims of lands that they consider theirs.
“We want to rebuild ourselves as a Mapuche Nation, not another way,” the defiant lonko (chief) of the rural community of Temucuicui, Víctor Queipul, who leads one of the most combative areas in southern Chile, told AFP.
Temucuicui cannot be entered without authorization from the indigenous people. The Minister of the Interior, Izkia Siches, was on her way here two days after the inauguration in March of leftist President Gabriel Boric, when the delegation was intimidated with bullets fired into the air.
“I do not deal with any politician, with any state,” said Queipul.
Other indigenous people such as Julio Hotus, a member of the Council of Elders of Easter Island, a Chilean island territory of Polynesian origin in the middle of the Pacific, nonetheless support the new Constitution.
Hotus said he was “very hopeful” that the text represents “a new life for the country.”
“For us, the Rapanuí, it is the opportunity of the century”, he affirmed.
What is the situation of the Mapuche people?
Víctor Queipul, the Mapuche chief, spoke to AFP in June, in a “recovered” territory near Collipulli, in Temuco, some 800 km south of Santiago, after attending a tribal meeting with games and rituals to strengthen his spirituality. and plan combat strategies.
Through arson attacks, sabotage of forestry companies and peaceful occupations, Mapuche communities have managed to “recover” some areas of the territory that they consider their own and where they now live in accordance with their ancestral traditions.
“For them, the path is not a new democratic pact, but rather a break with the state,” Mapuche lawyer and academic Salvador Millaleo explained to AFP.
The academic considered this as “a historical error”, since the vast majority of the Mapuche people support “a peaceful solution”.
In recent weeks, the Arauco Malleco Coordinator (CAM, Mapuche) and other radical indigenous groups have intensified arson attacks, forcing the Boric government to militarize the Araucanía region, even though it had promised not to do so in its election campaign.
“There is an excessive use of violence by the State to which a sector of the Mapuche movement has responded with self-defense, but this self-defense is responsible and proportional to what the Chilean State has done with this Mapuche movement,” the historian estimated. Mapuche Fernando Pairicán.
The Mapuches today live in just 5% of what used to be their former territories in southern Chile, which were left in the hands of forestry companies and farmers. Its poverty rate doubles that of the rest of the population.
With information from AFP
