Chile's Student-Protester Generation Plays With Constitutional Chaos
Voters will hopefully come to their senses and reject a radical, left-wing constitution.

Augusto Pinochet's legacy hasn't aged well in the era of cancel culture (and for good reason). However, it's fair to say that Chile's current, pro-free market constitution, drafted in 1980 during his regime, has served the country well, bringing staggering economic success by Latin American and even global standards. But in an October 2020 referendum, 78 percent of Chilean voters chose to ditch the constitution altogether, a damnatio memoriae by unequivocal popular decree.
It seemingly mattered little to voters that, for years, Chile has had one of the region's highest per capita GDP. As Chilean writer Axel Kaiser points out, the country has led Latin America in terms of access to university education and poverty reduction. Poverty, in fact, decreased from 45 percent in 1982 to a mere 8 percent in 2014, according to Chile's Commission on National Productivity. The country (which is the world's leading copper exporter and was the second largest lithium producer in 2020) also reduced inequality and led the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in social mobility in 2018. Not bad for a nation whose economy between 1950 and 1970 was, according to a Library of Congress country study, "the poorest among Latin America's large and medium-sized countries."
Chile's progress is not all due to Pinochet's original 1980 constitution, which was often amended under subsequent center-left, democratically elected governments, most thoroughly by former President Ricardo Lagos, who served from 2000 to 2006. Some critics even refer to the current arrangement as the "Lagos Constitution." The question now, however, is whether Chileans will approve or reject a new constitutional draft in another referendum, which will be held on September 4.
Curiously, this year's constitutional referendum may be a consequence of the December 2011 election for the University of Chile Student Federation (FECH), which set off a student movement against "unacceptable inequality" and other causes and eventually took over the national government.
Usually, the vote for student body president of a South American public university is an obscure, somniferous proceeding that involves Che Guevara iconography, anti-capitalist slogans, and unfiltered cigarette smoke. But that year's FECH election, which was decided by fewer than 8,000 ballots, was featured in the global press. The BBC consulted political analysts and marketing specialists to dissect its results. The New York Times lamented the narrow defeat of the incumbent, Camila Vallejo, a 23-year-old geography student and Communist Party member, who the headline described as "the world's most glamorous revolutionary."
During the previous seven months, student protests—the largest since the end of the Pinochet era—had caused havoc across Chile. Vallejo and other student leaders demanded free tuition, a ban on private education profits, and an end to school choice, which is a main feature of the Chilean system. Sebastián Piñera, the then-recently elected center-right president, caved in to pressure and began talks on educational reform with the opposition, Concertación (an alliance of left-wing parties that had ruled the country from 1990 until 2010). The FECH leadership, however, insisted that the social democratic suits in parliament had no right to represent the students.
When the hyped FECH election came around, Vallejo lost to Gabriel Boric, a law student and hardliner who claimed that his rival was indeed negotiating with politicians. He became a national figure and used his platform to gain a seat in Congress in 2013, as did Vallejo and two other student leaders: Giorgio Jackson of Chile's elite, private Pontifical Catholic University and Karol Cariola, then-general secretary of the Communist Youth of Chile.
"Revolutions," philosopher Nicolás Gómez Dávila once reflected, "are perfect incubators for bureaucrats." In Chile, the fledgling saboteurs of 2011 are now running the country: Cariola is poised to become the speaker of the Chamber of Deputies. Vallejo and Jackson are cabinet ministers: Jackson is the general secretary and Vallejo acts as the equivalent of the chief of staff. A 36-year-old Boric became Chile's sitting president last March. Arguably, the 2011 FECH election was the most important in the country's recent history.
How did these sanctimonious, sophomoric malcontents end up in charge of Latin America's most successful economy? For one thing, they wasted no chance to strike, figuratively and literally. In 2017, during the second presidency of socialist Michelle Bachelet, who veered much to the left in comparison to her first term in 2006–10, Boric and company led a new wave of street protests, this time against Chile's landmark private pension system. In 2019, once Piñera was back in office after winning a second term, the government announced mild fare hikes for the Santiago metro, the most technologically advanced in Latin America. There followed some of the most violent protests in the region's recent history, euphemistically labeled a "social outburst" in the media. Smelling political blood, the student protesters of yesteryear went after the Chilean Constitution itself.
In 2011, Piñera had yielded ever so slightly to the agitators. In 2019, with 80 metro stations partially or fully destroyed, dozens of toll booths incinerated, and even churches set ablaze, the former president capitulated. He met Boric, among other left-wing parliamentarians, and agreed to hold the referendum on whether to summon a new constitutional assembly.
Once Chile's Constitution was stripped of all legitimacy, Boric's path to power was clear. In July 2021, he upset Daniel Jadue, a Communist Party veteran and mayor of a Santiago district, in the presidential primary of the Chilean left, which had assembled under an alliance called Apruebo Dignidad, a name that expresses support for the new constitution. In November, Boric came in second place in the first round of the presidential election with 26 percent of the vote, whereas the Concertación's candidate came in fifth place with a mere 12 percent. The student radicals, backed by the Communist Party, had swept aside the old, moderate left.
In the December 2021 runoff, Boric comfortably won against José Antonio Kast, a Catholic conservative whom the global press compared to former U.S. President Donald Trump and Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro. Boric was helped by his opponent's political incompetence—Kast came out in Pinochet's defense and appeared not to know his own government program during a debate. Boric entered La Moneda, the presidential palace in Santiago, last March. The revolution had triumphed, or so it appeared during Boric's ephemeral honeymoon with the electorate.
The day after Boric's election, Chile's currency dropped by 3.5 percent against the dollar and the country's dollar-denominated stock index fell by 10 percent. Investors were alarmed by his promises to nationalize the private pension funds, a cornerstone of the financial system, and raise taxes, particularly on the mining sector. As part of his aggressive environmentalist agenda, Boric opposes a new $2.5 billion iron, copper, and gold mining project by privately-owned Andes Iron that was approved by a regional environmental commission last year. And on June 1, he announced the creation of a state-owned lithium company.
Boric named Mario Marcel, a former president of Chile's central bank who was close to the Concertación-era governments, as his finance minister, thus helping to ease investor sentiment. The stock market has rebounded somewhat in recent months; the iShares MSCI Chile exchange-traded fund, for instance, is up over 10 percent year to date at the time of writing but is still down over 20 percent from early May 2021 when the constitutional assembly produced its draft text. None of this has helped Boric's approval ratings, which stood at a dismal 24 percent in May according to one poll.
Boric's dive in public approval is not only due to the threats against private property, rising inflation, and skyrocketing gas prices but also to rampant insecurity. Homicides increased by 29 percent during this year's first six months, and, for the first time in recent history, carjacking in broad daylight has become common. In the southern region of Araucanía, indigenous Mapuche organizations have launched a string of terrorist attacks. To put it mildly, Boric faced no problems of this caliber in his previous career as a college campus bigwig. And voters have taken notice.
The unpopular president is not allowed to campaign in favor of the new constitution. In recent weeks, however, he claimed that if the "reject" side wins the September 4 referendum, the process should begin anew with the election of yet another constitutional assembly.
Most opinion polls suggest that the "reject" side has a considerable advantage. Buyer's remorse seems to have kicked in; the new constitutional assembly, elected in May 2021, came up with a 388-article document that The Economist described as "a fiscally irresponsible left-wing wish list." With its prohibition of "job insecurity" and limitless welfare programs, justified under a plethora of fabricated "social" rights, the new constitution brings to mind the political platform of the adolescent presidential candidate who promised his electorate an indoor, Olympic-size swimming pool and a European grand tour if he is made to preside over the student council.
As Boric indirectly throws the government's full weight behind the "approve" campaign, voters may still ratify the new constitution. If they don't, however, months and perhaps years of constitutional chaos can ensue, with no small levels of economic turmoil and uncertainty. Chileans bought left-wing student pipe dreams in haste, and they might end up repenting at leisure.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Augusto Pinochet's legacy hasn't aged well in the era of cancel culture (and for good reason).
I would say it has aged quite well and with very good reason. The cancel culture proves quite definitively that leftists are not compatible with a free society and that Pinochet rescued Chile from the same fate suffered by Cuba and now Venezuela.
Reason hates Pinochet because he had the nerve to stand up to and shoot Marxists. Reason can't understand why anyone would do that. Some of the staff's best friends are Marxists. Sure, they have some wrong ideas but they are right about a lot of things and they mean well is pretty much the reason attitude towards Marxists. Those of us who live outside the DC lefty journo fart bubble, however, understand that the truth is a bit more nuanced as they say.
I made $30,030 in just 5 weeks working part-time right from my apartment. When I lost my last business I got tired right away and luckily I found this job online and with that I am able to start reaping lots right through my house. Anyone can achieve this top level career and make more money online by:-
Reading this article:>> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
and hence we should shoot "Marxists" on sight to save our republic!! huzzah!
The problem with evil is that it forces you to either become like it or become one of its victims.
Briggs, I think you nailed it. Pinochet and his supporters may have overreacted to the Marxist threat, but it was a real and existential threat, much of it coming over the border from Peru and set it motion by Allende before he was "removed" by popular demand.
I lived in Santiago for two years and during the "mostly peaceful" demonstrations that shut down the city and nearly destroyed the Chilean economy. The reporting in the world press of those events, including in Reason, were just parroting of a New York Times article, a typical left leaning distortion and/or emission of all the factors that went into Chile's meltdown.
Vallejo and other student leaders demanded free tuition, a ban on private education profits, and an end to school choice, which is a main feature of the Chilean system.
And then adults told them to shut up and sit down, right?
Sadly no. The adults should have shot them. You can't reason with these people and they are never going to give up or change their minds.
free tuition, a ban on private education profits, and an end to school choice
Wait, is this in Chile or the US?
What's Venezuela, chopped liver?
A South American shit sandwich: bread in the middle, socialist shithole at each end.
Thank goodness it couldn't happen here! Certainly not! Anyway I don't believe it could, Well, let's hope not. Maybe if I just quit listening to the news and not vote it will all just go away.
The unpopular president is not allowed to campaign in favor of the new constitution. In recent weeks, however, he claimed that if the "reject" side wins the September 4 referendum, the process should begin anew with the election of yet another constitutional assembly.
They will just keep having elections until the right side wins and then have no more elections.
Yeah, Pinochet was so wrong to line these people up against the wall and shoot them. They were just peaceful student protestors.
"Voters will hopefully come to their senses and reject a radical, left-wing constitution."
But if not, and if Chile turns into a humanitarian disaster, Koch-funded libertarians will know how to respond. Fiona will use it as an excuse to invite the entire population of Chile to immigrate to the US. Like she's done about a dozen times with the humanitarian disaster in Ukraine.
#CheapLaborAboveAll
If the leftist government legalizes pot and pays for six year old children to have sex changes, Reason will see the humanitarian disaster as one of those unfortunate things that sometimes has to happen for society to advance.
Actually that's a valid point for at least some Koch-funded libertarians. I'd expect Reason's LGBTQIA+ correspondent Scott Shackford to embrace those #ElectiveMastectomiesForChildrenAboveAll priorities.
Shackford is all about grooming the children. The children must be groomed.
Voters will hopefully come to their senses and reject a radical, left-wing constitution.
Why would a magazine run by radical left-wingers print something like this? Doesn't make any sense. This article must be a mistake.
Few if any of us have said that Reason is run by radical left-wingers. What a lot of us point out is that the staff has such a glaring blind spot for cultural cosmopolitanism that it blinds them to the extent that they abandon libertarian principle in favor of that cosmopolitanism.
Latin America always has been and always will be a shit show. Some countries will go through phases that seem sane and/or prosperous, but that seems temporary.
We might as well wish for unicorns as for consistent free societies and markets south of the border. And we might need that wall after all.
It is never great but some places are worse than others. The worst places are places where the Marxists are able to get their fangs into the country. Cuba and Venezuela are two of the worst places on earth and were not that way before the communists showed up.
Augusto Pinochet's legacy hasn't aged well in the era of cancel culture (and for good reason).
He definitely was no libertarian, as all of his opponents were. Oh, wait, none of his opponents were libertarians - in fact they were all worse than Pinochet. Sometimes you gotta vote for the lesser of two evils and I would suggest that, looking at what is going on with Chile today, Pinochet is looking pretty good.
Yes he is. What has happened to Venezuela also makes Pinochet look very good. How much better off would Venezuela be today if someone had just shot Chavez, Maduro and the rest of the Marxist bastards in about 1999?
Chavez was imprisoned for leading a failed coup in 1992. In 1994, newly elected Venezuela President Rafael Caldera made the disastrous decision to release Chavez,
How loyal is the Chilean military to Boric? If it's steadfastly loyal to him, he can simply void an electoral defeat and impose his Communist Constitution on the masses.
Augusto Pinochet's legacy hasn't aged well in the era of cancel culture (and for good reason).
Why for good reason? That seems like a massive assertion, regardless of what you think of Augusto Pinochet, that was just thrown out there with no real support. It's possible that there were provisions in the constitution that were susceptible to abuse. But, if so, you'd never know it from this article.
Or is it just the fact that Col. Pinochet was the leader when it was decided upon? That seems like a pretty lousy reason to indict a constitution, though.
Which brings me to the entire question of Pinochet. Sure, I can't justify his killing people. But, do any of the people so quick to indict him have a better course of action to propose? A plurality government (due to fractured opposition) that had agreed to limits on its power to take office was systematically dismissing those limits by executive decree, ignoring the opposition to their actions in the legislature. Said government, was importing foreign military "advisors" and arming its supporters as a private army, loyal to the party in power and not the constitution. The legislature was openly calling for the military to intervene and former head of the armed forces had been arrested, not for anything he'd actually done, but because he might serve as a rallying point against the government. Do you just sit back and let the government form a dictatorship? And, if you do, what do you do about those foreign "advisors" and armed supporters of the regime?
These aren't really trivial questions. If you say you're against dictatorship, but let communist dictatorships slide, well, you're not really against dictatorship. You just favor the commies. And the fact that you're doing so for aesthetic reasons or out of a certain fashion sense (finding them "glamorous") doesn't really excuse much. In the context of a functioning republic with a government that at least tangentially restricts itself from the rights of the people, what Pinochet did would obviously be inexcusable. But, only an abject moron would think that was the situation Pinochet found himself in. And I'm open to whatever a reasonable person can tell me were the alternatives.
Libertarians cannot account for Marxists. Marxists use the benefits of a free society to take over and then make it a dictatorship. Standing by "meh principles" is just making yourself a martyr when your enemies are ruthless enough to use the freedoms you believe in as a means of enslaving you. You can't have free society if a significant portion of society not only doesn't believe in freedom but is also ruthless enough to use the freedom you give them to enslave everyone else. And that is what Marxists do.
That's true as a broad principle. The question is whether standing up to Marxists has to involve throwing people out of helicopters with no due process. I think it's safe to say that's not somewhere any civilized person wants to go. At that point, you start to become the very thing you're trying to defend against. Of course, that's easy enough for me to say in the U.S. of A. At least at this point, the issues haven't become existential here. But, the question deserves more consideration than it gets.
Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a right-wing populist (aka Islamist) rather than a Marxist, famously said, "Democracy is like a streetcar. You ride it until you get to your destination, and then you get off."
In politics it is not just how many persons are on one side of an issue vs. the other side, it is also about how passionate one side is vs. the other. We see that the students in Chile are much more passionate, to willingness to use riots and violence, than the bourgeois who have benefited from the old Constitution. Ditto for indigenous fighters in the Araucania region. How does Chile resolve the conflict? Or are they fated to fight a revolution / Red-White Civil War, or succumb to a left-wing Marxist cum Guevarist party rule?
As for "(and for good reason)", pause to compare Pinochet's Chile with its eastern neighbor Argentina. For every leftist shot by Pinochet's forces, 10x as many, at least, were shot by the Argentine generals. To the same result. Argentina is ruled by leftists seemingly intent that branded-proletariots come first and everyone else sinks in misery. Will Chile choose the same?
At least we are getting some consistent reproducible results from the socialism experiments.
#actualscience
But, this time, they'll do Socialism right.