ONLINE CURRENTS VOL3 - Flipbook - Page 52
viscerally. What took place on the streets of Chile during those weeks was an overwhelming
national repudiation of Chile’s social, political and environmental path, the likes of which had
been unseen for the country. 15
“Chile woke up,”
16
was another protest chant, but what was it waking up to? If what it didn’t
want was clear, what was the path to be chosen, and how would it to be chosen?
President Sebastian Pinera’s initial response was to dismiss the protests out of hand and
send in the army, which was still the national body most associated with torture and
disappearance during the regime of dictator Augusto Pinochet. It was the first time since the
dictatorship that troops were seen in public spaces and on the nation’s streets. The public
knew this.
It inflamed them further.
Within days, Pinera began dismissing prominent members of his cabinet in the hope that it
would quell the public anger. It did not. He soon realized that the scale of public opprobrium
was such that only by allowing and inviting fundamental, systemic change to the country
could he save himself and his administration. A referendum was called, asking whether the
Pinochet-era constitution should be replaced. The vote was overwhelmingly in favor of
change.
Soon after, an entirely elected body, with few establishment representatives, began drafting
a new constitution. This would soon become arguably the most progressive document ever
drafted by any country, and which launched “a frontal attack on the country’s longstanding
commitment to neo-liberal economic principles.” 17
The document was groundbreaking across a variety of areas: it “declared that Chile is a state
that emphasizes solidarity”; enshrined gender parity in all political representation; gave
fundamental rights to local and national representation for native peoples; and - crucially “included a long list of socio-economic rights.” 18
But amongst all these features, what made the text most unique was “the way in which
awareness of humans’ dependence on their environment permeates the text19 ” and how it
was to “constitutionally recognize that nature and all of its constituent parts, such as water,
forests and wildlife, have inherent legal rights.”
20
No other constitutional document on earth had ever ascribed the environment with such
rights.
51
