Agustín Squella, at his home in Santiago de Chile Cristian Soto Quiroz
Chilean intellectual Agustín Squella (78) – author of haunting titles, mostly essays – has thrown himself directly into politics in the last year like never before. Since last July it has been part of the 154 conventions drafting a new constitution, a body in the final stages of its work. On July 4, voters will hand over the final text to President Gabriel Boric, after which the convention will cease work. As a keen observer of Chilean society, in this interview he conducted from his home in Santiago, east of the city, Squella analyzes this final phase of the process and the moment that Chile is experiencing, less than three months after the September 4 referendum, who must confirm or reject the proposal.
Questions. How do you observe people and the social mood?
Answer. People upset, social mood bad. I see disproportionate attitudes and statements from one side to the other, all of which I attribute more to the pandemic than to our current political, social and economic problems. The pandemic and its effects are insidious and no one yet knows what neurological consequences it is having in people, even if they are not infected with the virus. To mention a minor, haven’t you seen how talkative we’ve all gotten? We talk a lot, very loudly, overrunning as we speak.
P For the academic Kathya Araujo, there was a promise of social dialogue in the constitutional process that has not been kept. It fits?
R I agree with her and I’m sorry things turned out that way. I still wonder if they could actually be different. I think we took too literally that the new constitution would be everyone’s home. The only house of all seems to be the national soccer team in practically every country. The new constitution, if adopted, will be everyone’s home, which does not mean that it is to everyone’s liking or even approval. Therefore, the members of a large family living in a common house do not appreciate it in the same way. A democratic and open society is a nest of different and found beliefs, ideas, visions of the past, approaches to the future, ways of thinking, ways of life, interests. How to please everyone with a constitutional text?
P What is your opinion on the text that clarifies the convention?
R Despite the good work of the harmonization commission, the text is still being overwritten. Too many terms, too many clauses in each term, too many words in each clause. This constitutional graphomania may stem from the distrust openly shown by the majority of the Convention towards current and future legislators, which it often disparagingly referred to as “constituted powers”. Something like impure forces that border on illegitimacy and that stand in contrast to the purity of the ingredients and the impeccable representativeness that we ascribe to ourselves.
P Is it a re-founding text, as the critics think, or does it bring together the best of Chile, its institutions and the country’s constitutional development?
R Not refoundational at all, just transformational. And fortunately. It was not intended to be a make-up text, nor reformative: it could only be transformative or revolutionary, and it was clearly the former. As for me, I don’t want a different Chile, I want a better Chile. The refreshing breezes that ignite the spirits of some may be so ignited they risk setting the prairie on fire.
P What are the strengths of the constituent proposal?
R Democratic state, with representative democracy and reinforced by forms of direct democracy that we have never known in the country; rule of law; social rights because, as Elías Díaz says, “a rule of law without social rights is a rule of law”; protecting a nature of which we are a part; decentralization of the country. That is at the level of the provisions of the proposed constitution, that is, what should be, and we will see what happens in reality.
P Why?
R Because a Constitution is like a musical score that is presented to the present and future authorities to be executed with talent and fidelity, with an audience that will remain on the agenda and that will demand a good interpretation.
P Is there anything in the text that worries a liberal like you?
R By definition, a liberal is always dissatisfied, contrary to what happens with the always accommodating neoliberals. Although we know it well, when did we bring the poorest and most questionable version of liberal doctrine, that of Hayek, Friedman and Gary Becker, to Chile and happily convert our elites to it? And as for a left-liberal, even more worrying, since he’s dealing with that part of a redemptive left in the world, fantasizing about the new man, the ideal society, the power of the will to change everything, and so on, the everlasting Wisdom that would spontaneously emerge from the center of the earth and that we men and women of this modern age – or postmodern, who knows – could not listen to, much less interpret properly.
P Do you think citizens will read the text before voting, or will it be decided by other factors?
R I think so, although I rather hope so. How else to vote responsibly in the referendum on September 4th? But we already know about our poor reading skills. I had a cousin who said she reads something every night to help her sleep and you know what she read?
P What has your cousin read?
R A postage stamp with the inscription “Correos de Chile”. She couldn’t finish the word “mail” and was already asleep.
P The current constitution in Chile was drafted in 1980 during the Pinochet dictatorship, but in democracy it underwent dozens of fundamental changes, such as the reforms of the socialist Lagos in the 2000s, who signed the current Magna Carta. Is it still the Pinochet constitution for you?
R Of course. There were very important constitutional changes, but also extremely slow and always subject to the veto of a third of the votes of the defenders of the Pinochet Constitution in our National Congress. The main reforms of 1989 and 2005 were important reforms and, as for the second, long-delayed. It wasn’t about new constitutions. It’s nice to say that it’s possible to do things with words, but without exaggerating.
P Will you agree to the proposal in the referendum?
R i will approve If I vote in favor of most provisions of the proposed Constitution, could I do anything else? In addition, I assume that the current or future legislature, as well as the entire citizenry, can intervene in the shortcomings in order to later adjust the case. The law is a dynamic order, not static, changing, not fixed, and always anticipates its own emergence and change, laying down the rules and procedures for doing so. Only extreme constitutional narcissism could explain why some think the proposed new constitution will be perfect and therefore immune to change.
P How do you explain that the option of amending the constitution had 78% support in October 2020 and today polls show split support and disapproval with a large number undecided?
R It’s hard for me to understand, but what characterizes Chile is that it says yes to change and then gets scared when the change comes. At the same time, and in this case, many who are in favor of rejection do so not because they have formed a judgment on the Convention’s proposal – not yet ready – but because of unpleasant incidents that occurred during the constitutional process and because of attitudes and immoderate declarations from voters who boasted more about themselves than about the process we were in.
P Who is it?
R To some extent we were all to blame, again from side to side, caring more about who each of us was than where and what we were for. We gave juice, as they say in Chilean slang, and that drew distancing and even anger from the citizenry.
P Do you understand the world you will reject? Is it just the right one who’s in this position?
R It is more than right, but I ask those who are in favor of rejection – even those in favor of approval, not to mention the undecided, the latter being the most responsible of all – to wait until they have the final proposal, harmonized and with its transitional rules also in sight. We should all prepare to analyze it in family, neighborhood, work, professional, and student groups without getting carried away by first impressions or the voice of the tribe or pack to which we belong.
P How was it for an intellectual like you this year when you suddenly ended up in politics? How is the politics in Chile?
R I felt like I was living someone else’s life. Do you remember what Norberto Bobbio said about politicians and intellectuals? While the latter untie knots, the former cut them. After taking care of my academic life, I got used to untying knots and sometimes twisting them more, and now I found myself in an area where they had to be cut with voices. A negative factor about the convention was that some of the academics who came to it could believe that when we arrived in a political space, we became ipso facto accomplished politicians.
P And Chilean politics? How are you?
R The usual, here and around the world. Can there really be a new way of doing politics when it is a human activity that has to do with power, with gaining, exercising, maintaining, increasing and regaining power when it has been lost?
P Have you ever regretted taking on this political adventure?
R no I have always found meaning in this task, no matter what the outcome. Look how a 78-year-old man had the opportunity, much or little, to work on a proposal for a new constitution for his country. Sure, it was a non-rational decision if you believe that rational are only the decisions we make in our favor. Also, and to use your word, it’s about time my only adventure isn’t just betting on the horses from time to time.
P He will write a book about his own experiences within the Constituent Body. What cheers you up?
R Sometimes I think I could have applied to the Convention just to write the book I’m preparing.
Subscribe here to the EL PAÍS México newsletter and receive all the informative keys to current events in this country