HOW will the vote go in the constitutional referendum on December 17? The polls point to a comfortable majority for an “against” vote.
 
In general, the people who are “against” are not so because they know the contents of the new constitution, but because they are “against” what is happening in Chile — not “against” the government necessarily but rather “against” politics in general, “against” the fact that no solutions to people’s longstanding problems are being found.
 
Hugo Guzman: Could the vote could be interpreted as no-confidence in the government?
 
Marta Lagos: That hasn’t caught on. The President, Gabriel Boric, has stayed away from all this — the government agenda did not include an involvement in the process.
 
At the election of the constitutional councillors that worked on shaping the new text, the percentage of null and blank votes was 20 per cent. Could this be repeated?
 
I believe that the null votes in that election were not only due to a rejection of those candidates or the process, but more so the fact that it was an election with a low level of information or communication with the electorate.
 
Those who usually do not vote found themselves with ballots full of names they did not recognise, hence the null and blank votes.
 
I don’t doubt, whatever the turnout this time, that the previous 20 per cent will still refuse to participate — ie refuse to cast a valid vote [voting became compulsory in 2023].
 
The 33-year-old electoral roll is a shambles. We do have, in theory, 15 million people who should be able to vote, but an audit of the electoral roll would produce a list strewn with errors.
 
There has been no meaningful effort on the part of the authorities to correct this anomaly, which might leave more than two million unable to cast a vote; in other words, over 13 per cent of the population will be left disenfranchised.
 
A long time ago, I used to vote in La Pintana [Santiago Metropolitan Region] where people would decide how they would vote after holding discussions in the voting queue.
 
It was a vast queue and the waiting long, but it was a friendly space, everything of concern was discussed, comments were shared, and almost everyone knew each other. Much of the chat was about how their relatives and friends had or were going to vote and many voting choices were made based on that.
 
These days people have moved away from such communal voting, especially at the local level. We don’t know if that culture of sharing information and opinions among local people in such queues will ever return. People are far more isolated and alone these days and deprived of the possibility to compare views before deciding how to vote.
 
In the case of this plebiscite, people will more readily vote “against,” because it will signal directly their rejection of the Chilean reality they experience daily.
 
This attitude is more likely because saying “I am in favour” is difficult. Too many don’t know what they are actually in favour of but can make a point by rejecting the way things are.
 
Negative rejectionism has, today, an upper hand in a society plagued by crime, personal security concerns, increasing numbers of migrants, and sky-rocketing cost of living — all of which provide enough reason to vote “against.”
 
The new constitution will become collateral damage, an easy target of choice for desperate people. Chileans are not alone in this predicament — just look at the Argentinians voting for Javier Milei [who appealed to Chileans to ditch “the communist” Boric].
 
Chile, I believe, is far from such collapse. The issue of security and crime is a very serious one but it mostly affects the capital where 70 per cent of the banditry takes place. I don’t think that the climate of insecurity is the same for the rest of the country.
 
Regarding migrants, people know that the problem of the border is a hot potato and that it is not something that can be solved with one touch. They have been badmouthing the migrants for 20 years, that’s nothing new and will not change overnight.
 
And how to “move the needle” — to change anything significantly?
 
What “moves the needle” is a person’s belief that her or his immediate future is going to change as a result of how they vote. The vast majority of Chileans are convinced that their vote counts for nothing, hence the reason for voting “against.”
 
Milei sold himself to the voters as “the outsider.” At the moment Chile hasn’t such an individual. Some of the mayors have tried notably Daniel Jadue, the communist mayor of the Santiago borough of Recoleta. [Jadue ran as a presidential candidate in 2021 securing 39.6 per cent of the vote to Boric’s 60.4. His radical local policies include setting up of popular pharmacies, social housing and infrastructure projects].
 
Regrettably, Chileans are “wise” to electoral experiences and see the new constitution as just another dodgy snake-oil offer that they are not interested in.
 
How do you think the situation of the citizens will be affected if the new constitution is not approved and the current one remains in place?
 
Look, 70 per cent of the people could not care less what happens in the plebiscite, or indeed with this constitution. They are not interested in politics. The remaining 30 per cent is hyper-politicised and split into two camps bitterly opposed to each other.
 
The idea that the right has the upper hand is misplaced. The day after the plebiscite 70 per cent of the country won’t care either way, because at the end of the day, the [Pinochetist] constitution of 1980 kept the country working for over 40 years and it will continue to do so.
 
The expectation of change has long gone. Nobody believes any more that the Boric government [whose November 2023 approval rate was 31 per cent] is capable of ushering in a transformation. Another “good reason” to vote “against.”
 
Hugo Guzman is editor-in-chief of El Siglo, newspaper of the Communist Party of Chile.