Chilean constitutional plebiscite, 2020

Chilean constitutional plebiscite, 2020
Name	Chilean constitutional plebiscite, 2020
Date	25 October 2020
Country	Chile
Turnout	50.9%
Result	Approval to draft new constitution; approval for Constitutional Convention format

Chilean constitutional plebiscite, 2020

The plebiscite held on 25 October 2020 in Chile asked voters whether to draft a new Constitution of Chile and which mechanism should draft it, producing a decisive mandate to replace the 1980 Constitution of Chile and to elect a fully elected Constitutional Convention. The vote occurred amid the 2019–2020 Protests in Chile and intersected with political actors such as Sebastián Piñera, Gabriel Boric, Beatriz Sánchez, and institutions including the Congreso Nacional de Chile, Servel, and the Supreme Court of Chile. Major civic movements including the Barricades (2019–2020) and organizations like the Unión Demócrata Independiente, Partido Socialista de Chile, Partido Comunista de Chile, Frente Amplio, and Chile Vamos framed the referendum amid debates involving figures like Camila Vallejo and Karol Cariola.

Background

The plebiscite followed months of nationwide demonstrations beginning in October 2019 that mobilized diverse actors such as the citizen assemblies, student federations like the Confederación de Estudiantes de Chile (CONFECH), trade unions including the Central Unitaria de Trabajadores, and neighborhood councils in Santiago, Valparaíso, and Concepción. Political negotiations between Sebastián Piñera's executive and congressional blocs including Partido por la Democracia, Christian Democratic Party, and Movimiento Autonomista culminated in the Agreement for Social Peace and a New Constitution signed in November 2019 by representatives of Chile Vamos, Concertación, Frente Amplio, and independents. Internationally notable reference points cited during debate included the 1980 Constitution of Chile, the Pinochet dictatorship, the Transition to democracy in Chile, and comparative processes such as the Spanish constitutional process and the Icelandic constitutional reform.

Campaigns and Political Positions

Campaign coalitions aligned across established parties and emergent movements. The "Approve" campaign counted endorsements from Partido Socialista de Chile, Partido Comunista de Chile, Frente Amplio, Nueva Mayoría, and social leaders like Giorgio Jackson and Beatriz Sánchez, as well as grassroots platforms including Plaza Dignidad assemblies and the Colectivo Socialista. The "Reject" campaign featured participation by Unión Demócrata Independiente, Renovación Nacional, Partido Republicano, and ideological figures such as José Antonio Kast and sectors of the Chile Vamos coalition that referenced 1980 Constitution of Chile continuity and Pinochet-era institutions. Debates involved institutions like the Constitutional Tribunal and personalities such as Andrés Allamand and Heraldo Muñoz. Civil society actors including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Movimiento por el Agua y los Territorios (MOVIAT), indigenous representatives from Mapuche communities and leaders such as Aucán Huilcamán pressed for plurinational recognition and rights within constitutional proposals.

Referendum Questions and Options

Voters faced two simultaneous questions administered by Servel: whether to approve starting a constitutional rewrite and which drafting body to elect. Options for the first question were "Apruebo" (Approve) and "Rechazo" (Reject); for the second question, choices were a mixed "Convención Mixta" (Mixed Convention combining parliamentarians and elected citizens) or a fully elected "Convención Constitucional" (Constitutional Convention). The design and wording drew on comparative constitutional models such as the Bolivia and the South African Constitution process, and procedural safeguards referenced norms from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the United Nations.

Voting, Turnout, and Results

On 25 October 2020, turnout registered about 50.9% of eligible voters according to Servel data; the "Apruebo" option won with roughly 78% of valid votes while the "Convención Constitucional" option prevailed with roughly 79%. Results varied regionally across Metropolitan Region, Valparaíso Region, Araucanía Region, Antofagasta Region and other administrative divisions, with higher "Apruebo" margins in urban centers such as Santiago and coastal cities like Valparaíso and stronger "Rechazo" pockets in rural constituencies. The electoral administration engaged local municipalities, Carabineros de Chile, and international observers from bodies including the Organization of American States and independent academic monitors from Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile and Universidad de Chile.

Immediate Aftermath and Political Consequences

The affirmative mandate accelerated the timetable for electing delegates to the Constitutional Convention in May 2021 and initiated negotiations in the Congreso Nacional de Chile about electoral rules, districting, indigenous reserved seats, and parity measures. Political consequences included cabinet reshuffles by Sebastián Piñera, shifts within Chile Vamos and Frente Amplio, the rise of independent candidacies, and renewed public mobilization exemplified by assemblies in Plaza Baquedano and regional protests. The result influenced presidential campaigns for the 2021 and 2022 cycles involving figures like Gabriel Boric, Yasna Provoste, and José Antonio Kast, and reconfigured alliances in municipal and parliamentary contests.

Legal and Constitutional Framework

The plebiscite operated under the organic law approved by Congreso Nacional de Chile following the Agreement for Social Peace and a New Constitution, with legal oversight from the Tribunal Calificador de Elecciones (Tricel), Corte Suprema de Chile, and Ministerio del Interior y Seguridad Pública. Constitutional procedures stipulated quorums, ratification mechanisms, and a subsequent mandatory plebiscite to approve the final draft; jurisprudence and comparative doctrine from institutions like the Inter-American Court of Human Rights informed discussions on indigenous rights, human rights guarantees, and the nature of constitutional replacement. Debates over the Constitution of Chile's replacement referenced amendments and transitional provisions from the 1989 Pact of Transition and post-dictatorship reforms.

International Reaction and Analysis

International responses came from state actors such as United States Department of State, European Union, Argentina, Brazil, and multilateral institutions including the United Nations and the Organization of American States (OAS), generally welcoming the peaceful democratic expression. Academic analysis from scholars affiliated with Universidad de Chile, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, London School of Economics, Harvard University, and think tanks like Centro de Estudios Públicos and Instituto Libertad y Desarrollo examined implications for institutional design, indigenous recognition, social rights, and Chile's market model. Commentary in global media outlets referenced precedents like the Icelandic constitutional reform and the Spanish transition to democracy while forecasting impacts on trade and investment monitored by institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Category:Politics of Chile Category:Referendums in Chile