NYT Link
Following a rise in Santiago subway fares, Chile has become a battleground of intense protests and arguments. President Sebastián Piñera went as far as saying the nation was "at war" with protesters, who have been actively participating in demonstrations, looting, and violence. Protesters call for a regime change and a complete restructuring of the government. In the face of destruction and despair, Chile has decided to move on to create a brand new Constitution which abandons the expectations set by the old Constitution, which was inherently flawed. The old model focused on empowering the upper class, while many others suffered under low wages, student debt, and inadequate health care (sound familiar?). In October of 2020, all of the people of Chile will be able to elect their constitutional framers for a constitutional convention. Chile has been a broken democracy for 30 years, and this constitution will not fix all of it's problems, but hopefully it will become a step in the right direction.
1. Do you think it was the right move for Chile to completely rewrite it's constitution?
2. In a comparison to the US, how are Chile and the US similar in history and current status?
3. Jefferson once said that the US Constitution should be switched out every 13 years, as newer generations should not be weighed down by the decisions of the old. In our AP Gov class, we have discussed the viability of replacing our possibly outdated constitution. Do you believe the US could possibly look to replace it's constitution? Or simply pass more amendments to modify the Constitution for a modern generation?
I think that as long as the old constitution is kept in place and the authors of the new constitution consider, but don’t cave to all of the public’s demands, rewriting the constitution is a good idea for Chile. As long as there is something to fall back on and the authors are competent, I think the process should go without chaos although I would assume that coming up with a new constitution that makes most people happy and results in a functioning government is going to be very difficult. Setting up the framework for a government, especially with the public’s opinion having great influence, presents a situation where failure to produce anything meaningful and long-lasting seems highly likely. If a country can avoid a complete overhaul of their constitution or framework for their government it should refrain from doing so, whether that be Chile or the US. There are just so many things to be debated when changes this major come along that it would take forever to be agreed upon, and even when it is, there will be masses of people that disagree with it.
ReplyDeleteI do think that it was a good idea for Chile to rewrite its constitution. With so much protesting and opposing views of their current constitution, it would seem best that people should change their constitution to their favor. It makes sense that the people of Chile have called for a regime change in that Chile's constitution benefited the rich and worsened the lives of the lower class. I believe that Chile should create a constitution with equal rights that will benefit all citizens of Chile and not just a particular group. As of now, I don't think that the US should replace it's constitution because it still works. If changes were needed, then amendments to modify the constitution for the modern generation is the best idea. There is no need for the Constitution to be rewritten unless there is a huge protest to change the way the US works. I think that in order for a Constitution to be rewritten completely would have to start from the people because the people are affected by the constitution.
ReplyDeleteChile's current constitution was written during the unpopular regime of Augusto Pinochet by representatives he picked to overrepresent his views. Pinochet only ascended to leadership of Chile because the US staged a coup to put him in power, deposing the democratically elected Salvador Allende and ending years of democratic rule. It is absolutely time for Chileans to correct this historical injustice and once again strive towards democratic ideals that, ironically, the US destroyed. As for the US, I agree with Colette that completely overhauling our constitution is not necessary because the system is, for all its flaws, still functioning well. Part of this is because the US constitution largely leaves the details of government to be figured out by each generation, which allows it to adapt to the times.
ReplyDeleteIt was a very good decision for the Chilean government to decide to rewrite their current Constitution. Based on the laws already created, it's pretty obvious that their "democracy" favors the upper class and affects negatively the lower one. The people of the country have realized the injustice done to them and they finally rose up, which is to be expected. Here in the US, however, I do not think we should rewrite our Constitution completely. Our Constitution was created with lots of systems that work and are still used today because they're that well thought out and it would be a shame to throw them away. Something that the US government can do is to add new amendments to modify the Constitution as FDR did with Amendment #21 to end the alcohol prohibition created by the 18th Amendment. This method can be used to cancel some Amendments that clearly don't work in today's America, the 2nd Amendment being one of them.
ReplyDeleteGiven that the old Constitution was "inherently flawed" as you mentioned, I think it was the right move for Chile to rewrite its Constitution, especially since so many people are in favor of it as can be seen in the protest with more than one million Chileans. However, as people above have stated, it is important that everyone is represented in the convention and in the making of the new Constitution. A new Constitution for Chile has the possibility of bringing hope to the people, creating a pathway towards a future that they can be inspired by and look forward to. With regards to the US Constitution, I do not think it is necessary to replace it since I believe it is a good foundation and functions fairly well currently. Through learning from our many mistakes in history, we have been able to accumulate and improve our Constitution over time through the use of amendments, and I think that will suffice.
ReplyDeleteThe US and Chile are currently both experiencing struggles with the function of socially arcane documents that formerly applied to a time far different from our world now, technologically AND socially. Social biases such as racism and gender exclusion undoubtedly shaped the old constitution as well, and amendments can only do so much to fix that. Law and society as a whole used to work differently in the US and Chile, and continuing to pretend that old documents (written by individuals who could never imagine the world 200 years later) are still effective in running modern society is often foolish. Writing a whole new constitution is not something to be taken lightly, nor is it easy at all, but in Chile's case, it seems necessary for society to move forward without leaving anyone behind. The US perhaps should learn a lesson before the government crumbles to the point of no return through gridlock, debt, or many other problems that are considered "normal" in our system of leadership.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is right of Chile to create a new constitution because that is what the people of Chile were protesting for. They got what they wanted, and hopefully what they come up with will make them happy, and hopefully they get the type of government that they all want. In the United States, I don't really think that a whole new Constitution will be made to replace the current one because there aren't many problems with what we have, and there can simply be new amendments added to help address new issues that are being brought up. The Constitution of the United States is fine as it is and I don't think that the people of the United States want to have a completely new and different constitution like the people of Chile.
ReplyDeleteOur constitution begins with "when in the course of human events, it becomes necessary... to dissolve the political bands," describing the necessity of overthrowing a system when it does not represent the people anymore. Such is the case with a constitution infused with elements of a dictatorship. The article discusses extreme wealth polarization under the current government, and it would be necessary to implement more regulatory measures, although I'm unsure of whether that should be directly in the constitution or in a lower law. For the U.S., I think our constitution is working decently smoothly, although instead of adhering to it verbatim, we should use our best modern-day judgement to interpret it (e.g. Second Amendment).
ReplyDeleteI believe that writing a new constitution is definitely the right move for Chile in order to strengthen their democracy. In response to the third question, I do not believe that the US should replace our constitution. For the most part, the current government still has a strong frame that functions well enough. If there is a dire need for a change, the US government should pass an amendment or law instead reconstructing the whole constitution, which would be unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteI think that given the circumstances that Chile is currently in, rewriting the Constitution was definitely a good start in hopes of fixing some of the many problems that they are facing at the moment. However, I think that the changes in government should not be abrupt and happen all at once. In regards to the third question, I believe that completely replacing the constitution may possibly solve some issues, but in result it will also cause new ones seeing as not everyone will agree with the decisions being made. In addition to that, the sudden change may cause people to have a hard time adjusting to the new circumstances and rules. Adding more amendments is an option, but it may conflict with some existing amendments. Inevitably, there will be opposition to any decisions the government makes, but I believe that if the country is in desperate need of change in the government, some changes should be made.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the first question I definitely believe making a new Constitution is the step forward for Chile because of the many issues of unrest prevalent within their nation. Although it will obviously not miraculously solve all of the country's problems it should certainly appeal to the lower class more as the root of the violence and protest is directly linked to an unfair representation of the lower class. In regards to the third question I believe although the United States could very well rewrite and completely replace the old Constitution, I do also believe that our current Constitution holds some of the fundamentals to maintaining a balanced nation. However, I do also think that simply adding more amendments could foster future success for the nation as well.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Jefferson's statement about the renewal of the Constitution. As we have and are currently studying, our interpretation system of the Constitution causes consisting and repeating conflicts. No words will ever be completely free from history, and will never be the end all be all. It's naive to think this is the case, and is seen in Chile. War and conflict shouldn't be the defining factor to changing or atleast giving a power to change the original document which causes the conflict. Amendments aren't doing enough, and many dont want change causing more conflict. We need change.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it was a good idea for Chile to rewrite their Constitution because it may be the beginning to a solution that will end the unrest in their nation. As the old model focused on empowering the upper class, the new Constitution will bring more equality to the citizens of Chile. As of history and current events, I believe that the US has had a much stronger system of government than Chile because our country's government system has set us up for success and efficiency, despite some bumps in the road. I do not think the Constitution needs to be completely re-written, but I believe there could be new amendments added that are up to date with our new day and age. However, I believe our Constitution was written in a way in which the interpretation of it can be changed based on the modern generation.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Chile’s decision to rewrite their constitution. The constant riots and protests from governmental action illustrates how the government is doing a poor job of representing the people, so that government has to change. Their Constitution is inherently flawed and change is necessary in order to appease the people. This aligns with the history of the U.S., where the settlers were dissatisfied with their current system of government and fought to change it. The framers even went on to say that if the government is inherently flawed and creates tyranny, it is the right of the people to rebel and change that system. However, as it pertains to the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution does not have to be changed because it is a living document and constantly evolving to meet the needs of the time. Therefore, modifying it directly is not necessary.
ReplyDeleteI think it was the correct choice to rewrite the constitution as in the context of the situation, the people were being treated completely unjustly. However, although this situation does seem similar to the United States and our constitution/the manner in which the government is run, the main difference is that our government continues to use the original constitution. Additionally, as far as the US abandoning or changing the constitution, I don't think that would be the best decision. There are various parts of it outlining key parts of our current government that continue to run smoothly. By getting rid of every aspect of our constitution, it would imply that every part of the constitution has faults, which in reality is not true... Sure, there may be parts that need rewriting or adjusting to fit current affairs, but it would be unnecessary to rewrite the entire thing.
ReplyDeleteAs kevin previously stated, “Chile's current constitution was written during the unpopular regime of Augusto Pinochet by representatives he picked to overrepresent his views”. Due to this single reason I think it is enough to argue that Chile’s constitution needs revision. If its citizens are supportive of rewriting the constitution to which they are, Chile should definitely write a new constitution that emphasizes their values. The US should also revise their constitution. Rewriting it won't be necessary because there are some very strong points stated by our founding fathers, but rather than adding more and more policies, the best solution may be to just edit what they already have to make it more suitable for the countries current status.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the third question, I agree with Jefferson’s sentiment that a new Constitution should be written every 13 years. While the Constitution has a lot of positive aspects, I think that it is still very outdated for our current generation. I believe we can take aspects of this Constitution to create a new one that supports issues of our generation. We cannot expect a document written over 200 years ago to still apply the same fundamental principles today that may not fit in with current societal norms. With that said, there also needs to be strict regulation in place to ensure that a new constitution won’t negatively affect the US. If we allow political power figures to write a new constitution in their interest, we will end up in a state of corruption, similarly to where Chile is at right now with their current constitution.
ReplyDeleteIf Chile's constitution makes it possible to rewrite its constitution. Then I see no fault in the people of Chile choosing to do so. On September 11th 1973 a US-sponsored military coup occurred in Chile. Replacing the democratically elected Presidente Salvador Allende with the dictator Pinochet. The nation's new leader essentially ran a purely capitalist, some may say libertarian state. While this allowed for a great deal of long term economic growth. Many people were still left in the dust starving. While Chile is now once again a democracy, the economic and social effects of that dark era still exist.
ReplyDeleteWith healthcare and education in shambles, it could be a good idea to rewrite their constitution. However, the people of Chile cannot assume that doing so will immediately bring change to the nation. Also, given the current state of affairs in Chile, It would be easy for the people to overstep their bounds and accidentally insert partisan positions into the new constitution in favor of whoever is in power when it is changed. Nevertheless, I believe it’s in Chile’s best interest to replace their constitution; however, they need to tread carefully when establishing the political institutions and setting the "rules of the game" of the democratic system in order to guarantee against the abuse of power by the government in the future.
ReplyDeleteIf the integrity of Chile's democracy improves through the new draft, I believe that it is justifiable to construct a constitution that is contemporary to that of modern issues and beliefs. What's more important however, is that the rights of the people are adequately addressed such that freedoms can be appropriately exercised. In a similar sense, the U.S. is also encountering issues in which results are driven by the current state of the constitution. The debate for a modern constitution continues to rage on in the States, with proponents and opponents supporting all sides. In my personal belief, the current U.S. Constitution ought to undergo a revised draft, as many new issues have arrived in the modern era that the Founding Fathers could have never predicted. New areas in technology and warfare must have certain limitations, to the benefit of society. Excessive change of the Constitution must also be avoided, as precedence ultimately needs to have a strong impact in decisions today.
ReplyDeleteThis is amazing and a truly historical even. It really makes me happy that people are still willing to push forward and essentially do what's right. America stands for democracy and freedom and I feel that we should be supporting other nations that are pushing to have their own freedom. There are risks with rewriting the constitution, there is always a fear that it won't tern out as good for the public as they intend, but I feel like any steps to a new future is a good move.
ReplyDeleteI think that it was the right move, although it will be very complicated and be a long process. They need to fix leftover dictatorship issues and a new constitution will probably be the best way to do it. And as for the US Constitution, I think it would've been very interesting if the US actually followed Jefferson and rewrote the Constitution basically every decade. I imagine the constitutions wouldn't really change much because that would cause a ton of chaos and our country's values shouldn't be changing too often. Ultimately I think our current system of just adding amendments is working pretty well.
ReplyDeleteI think that Chile made the right decision. The fact that the people are willing to create change is good for their country. As for the U.S. Constitution, it would be much harder to get that type of change out of our current situation but it is possible. If there was bipartisan support for the remaking of the constitution then that would be a lot better. I feel that Jefferson is right. The Constitution should have been switched out because policy changes over time and therefore, so should the constitution.
ReplyDeleteWriting a new constitution for Chile definitely was the right move that would hopefully fix the many problems they are facing. In response to the third question, it is not necessary for the US to replace its Constitution because, as of right now, there is not a very prominent problem. Unless there is a huge protest to change the way the US works, there is no need for the Constitution to be rewritten. Additionally, the US Constitution largely leaves the details of government to be figured out by generations as they pass.
ReplyDeleteAs long as Chile's people's ideals are kept in mind, then I believe there is no issue for writing a completely new constitution. America rewrote their constitution, and although it was not completely new, they also came up with many new ideas. The new constitution will allow the new government to cater to what their people really want for their governments.
ReplyDelete