El cambio constitucional no basta. Pero es un gran primer paso

(Publicado originalmente en Quora.com) Ver respuesta original aquí

(Continuación del post anterior)

La constitución es un primer paso, son las reglas del juego.

En las reglas actuales siempre se dice que "primero generemos el dinero y después el bienestar". Es algo inculcado por 40 años y publicitado hasta el cansancio. Hemos generado dinero, pero está terriblemente mal distribuido y además, las fuentes son esencialmente la exportación de materias primas a bajo precio, por volumen, que nos deja expuestos a los vaivenes del mercado mundial. No creamos valor agregado, vendemos piedras, madera, pescados y frutas. Evidentemente, bajo ese esquema es difícil avanzar una vez que alcanzamos la "frontera de posiblidades de producción" inherente a nuestro modelo exportador-extractivista.

La verdad es que si se analiza el modelo de desarrollo de países exitosos y estables el asunto es un poco diferente.

1. Constitución: derechos y obligaciones de base, organización del Estado y sus atribuciones. Si queremos avanzar, debe garantizar lo mínimo. Con la plata que hay podemos garantizarlo (Salud, educación y pensiones), pero no es sostenible bajo el modelo económico vigente. Por ende, la constitución debe responder a un nuevo tipo de modelo social-económico, lejos de la idea de Guerra Fría de la actual.
2. Mejoras al Código Penal (impunidad en crímenes económicos), Minero, Aguas, Laboral y Tributario inmediatas, la población ya no tolera mas abusos y el sentido de burla e impunidad. Eso calmaría buena parte de la temperatura.
3. Educación: La base del desarrollo es crear valor. Esto lo entendió rápidamente Adam Smith allá en el siglo XVIII. La concepción mercantilista que heredamos del Imperio Español, y extrapolara por nuestra generación dorada de Chicago Boys, nos ha llevado a creer que acumular dinero y jugar al casino nos hará grandes. Falso. Debemos crear valor agregado, y transformar las piedras, madera, pescado y frutas que exportamos en bienes que valgan por algo mas que su volumen. Eso se logra con educación "de calidad" y mucha innovación, los que nos lleva al punto siguiente.
4. Investigación y desarrollo: Actualmente no invertimos ni el mínimo recomendado por la OCDE, organización a la que pertenecemos con tanto orgullo. No hay ninguna política gubernamental creíble al respecto, ni una institucionalidad que incentive su desarrollo. Es mas fácil sacar piedras el norte y venderlas a China, verdad?
5. Industrialización y agricultura tecnificada: Seguimos pegados en la colonia, y vemos como los israelíes hacen en sus kibbuz, en una hectárea, lo que nosotros somos capaces en un fundo. Sin un uso racional del suelo y el agua, no mejoraremos la producción agrícola, y seguiremos dependientes de la importación de alimentos. Recordemos que no tenemos muchas tierras arables. Por la industria, desperdiciamos el norte que nos podría proveer una gran cantidad de energía, que sumada a la minería nos llevaría producir bienes manufacturados a un buen precio. No al nivel de China, pero existen muchos nichos en los cuales explorar.
6. Marco fiscal-tributario creíble: Los impuestos que pagan las clases medias y trabajadores sostienen el fisco. Estamos llenos de beneficios fiscales que llevan a los extractivistas a pagar virtualmente nada por recursos que no podremos renovar. Cobramos demasiados impuestos en bienes básicos que afectan a la clase media y trabajadora.
7. Mercados competitivos: Estamos en el paroxismo de monopolios privados en mercados normales, y empresas privadas controlan monopolios naturales. Estamos completamente al revés. La idea de regular los mercados es ofrecer precios competitivos para los consumidores, no para los productores. Precios inflados generar pérdida social, rezan los principios básicos de la microeconomía. Debemos mejorar la regulación, no "liberalizar para monopolizar".
8. Mas PYMES y menos conglomerados. Hay que ayudar al emprendedor que genera nuevo valor e ideas, no a las corporaciones que no necesitan ayuda. Prioridades al revés.
9. Descentralización política, adminiatrativa y fiscal: Concentrar todo en Santiago es muy bueno para los políticos y corporaciones, pero muy malo para los consumidores y contribuyentes. Los santiaguinos serán los mas agradecidos.

Y así podríamos seguir. Hay mucho paño que cortar, la paranoia y la campaña del terror ya está desatada, pero el cambio constitucional es necesario, pero no suficiente, y será irrelevamte si no se aborda la materia de forma seria y a largo plazo.

La bolsa de comercio vive en el día a día, y está bien que sea así, pero un país, una economía, una sociedad, es algo mas que un grupo de jugadores empujando por un mejor precio del día en sus títulos accionarios.

La rabia que ha acumulado la población por años no se calmará con medidas superficiales. Reformas creíbles pondrán paños fríos y lamentablemente para los dirigentes de la Sofofa, es hora de que ellos, al igual que todos, hagan ciertos sacrificios. Nadie les pide que se tiren al volcán, pero un mínimo ya sería algo aceptable.

Why Chile needs a new constitution

(Texto publicado originalmente en Quora.com) Ver respuesta original aquí

The reason is simply: The current constitution (1980) was written under no democratic rules, neither democratic consultation, under a dictatorship. It changes the Constitution of 1925 which had established the basis for a real social-democracy, not perfect, but an idea.

We use this undemocratic constitution because it WAS the central and main condition why the military would leave the power. The passing from Pinochet dictatorship to democracy was a deal to make it in a pacific way. It is called The Transition. Finally, the opposition to Pinochet, once in office, began to enjoy the Deal and fusion with the other side of the politic wing.

I will explain the current Constitution of 1980, after why it doesn't work anymore and finally what we expect.

Jaime Guzmán, the ideologist and Pinochet, the tool

The Constitution of 1980 a.k.a. Pinochet's Constitution

In 1973 a military coup overthrew the Government of Salvador Allende. His government was under siege internal and external and the rules of democracy were blurred. He was leftist and his project burned in august 1973. That history is for another post.

The new government - a military junta- was expected to give back the power to politicians and restart the democratic rule but they were supported by other powers outside the traditional parties: the Gremialistas. They had established their project in a book El Ladrillo (The brick) where they called the establishment of an ultra liberalist economic system and an ultra-conservative politic system. The junta started by a new fiscal and tax regime in 1974, and new rules and codes in labor, waters, forest, mining, and radical reforms in pension, health and education system until the 1980s. Also an extensive program of privatization of public companies (a prices of sold) which had been created under the social-democracy regime (1940–1960).

All this needs a solid stone to assure the perennial of this socio-political regime at a long time: A new constitution.

The Gremialistas headed by Jaime Guzmán, creator of the movement, found inspiration in the ideas of Diego Portales, champion of 1833 Constitution which established the first era of Chilean politics: The authoritarian republic (1830–1861). An oligarchic idea of “democracy” from an oligarchy who defeated the liberal wing in a civil war and erase the previous constitution, a federal-liberal idea.

Main points of 1980 Pinochet's Constitution:

Hyper presidentialism: also called the “king president”. Thought to establish a long time Pinochet rule, the president is the center of the political process, all legal agenda is dictated from him, he designs all regional and provincial authorities (extreme centralism), and he establishes what the congress should discuss.

Basis of institutions: the individual is the center, and the interactions among them are the important thing (intermediate agents). Society doesn't exist. Also, the prohibition of politic left and social democracy groups (that was amended in 1989, to transit to democracy).

Subsidiary state: in total opposition to social-democratic countries, we have no rights in education, health, pensions, etc, we have the “freedom” of choice. The state doesn't give any warranty of anything, and the freedom is only what you can pay. If you don't have the money (you are not free…) you could go to public institutions with no founding because the “freedom” (money) is “chosen” in private companies.

Weak Congress: or decorative/ornamental if you want. They have no permission to make a law which uses the fiscal money, and then 90% of law projects came from the president. Our parliament only votes the projects. In theory, they can “audit” the government, in theory.

Justice power: just an administrative service, because there is another power over the judges:

The Constitutional Court: the superpower of this constitution. They have managed to block all projects to change or upgrade our democracy, rights or freedom. They can block law projects, decisions of the Supreme Court decrees from presidents. All. The defenders of Pinochet legacy have profited from this court for 30 years in all subjects: moral and conservative statements (e.g.: abort, divorce, etc), economic issues, social rights, etc.

First Nations/aboriginals people: any word. Nothing. This is very delicate. We are a mixed country, métis or mestizo, how you want to call it. We know our origins, our culture and our history, and we are proud. They have been injured and abused until the nonreal. They need and claim justice. They are our sisters and brothers

And so. There are a lot of other issues, but, in the resume, this constitution is based in the world of 1833, is old, anti-democratic, and a capital issue to develop our country. In 1989 the opposition to Pinochet agreed with the deal because this was the condition to normalize the country and get out the dictator, but finally, it became the stone which divides, not joint our population.

A Constitution is not the end. But it is a very good start point. We need to release this chain.

Chile doesn't want “communism”, how many writers here say. We want the freedom to take control of our lives, to mend our broken society. We don't want to destroy the riches, we want justice and fair play rules. They will enjoy that also, but their conservatism is so deep and inexplicable to the rest of the western world.

This is a long way. We know. But we can't wait for more. All the polls until February 2020 show the same pattern: around 70% of Chilean population agree (Cadem, CEP, and others think tanks, not linked with left-wing, I should say it).

Second part of the question: Human rights.

Some people argue that we must equal policemen's rights and people's rights. There is a problem there: the idea of any “State of law” is back for the idea of “monopoly of violence”, it means the people give the power and use of force to the Authority, but it is not “free charge” it is a responsibility.

The order forces must assure the security of the territory and people, not provoke the mess. If the authority does not obey itself the empire of law, the legitimacy of authority is in danger.

Piñera government has passed the line and failed in its first obligation: order and law. They seem more interested in messing the issues, not resolving them.

The level of abuse and wrong use of force, the lack of professionalism showed for Carabineros make us wonder if they are actually in the law-side.

With an approval of around 10% , it is not clear the legitimacy of Piñera. I know, “he was elected under the rules”, yeah, but in the sermement ceremony he said, “I will accomplish the law”. This is the only source of power. If an authority does not follow the rules, is he a real authority?

That is all. I apologize for my faults in English orthography.