\n<\/p>\n
Chileans on Sunday rejected a new constitution that would have pulled the country to the right, likely ending a turbulent four-year process<\/a> to replace their national charter with little to show for it.<\/p>\n Nearly 56 percent of voters rejected the proposed text, with 96 percent of the votes counted.<\/p>\n It is the second time in 16 months<\/a> that Chile, a South American nation of 19 million, has rebuffed a proposed constitution \u2014 the other was written by the left \u2014 showing how deeply divided the nation remains over the set of rules and principles to govern the country even after four years of debate.<\/p>\n That debate began in 2019 after enormous protests<\/a> prompted a national referendum in which four out of five Chileans voted to scrap the constitution, a heavily amended version of the 1980 text adopted by the bloody military dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n But now, after failing to agree on a new text, the nation will likely forge ahead with the current constitution that so many had voted to replace.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n That makes Sunday\u2019s result a bitter outcome to a process that had once been hailed as a paragon for democratic participation, but has instead become a clear example of how difficult democracy truly is, particularly in the internet age.<\/p>\n \u201cThis could have been a possibility for people to believe again in politics, in politicians. And that has not happened,\u201d Michelle Bachelet, a leftist former president of Chile, said in an interview ahead of the vote. \u201cNobody will try to do a third version of this process.\u201d<\/p>\n Chileans twice elected mostly political outsiders \u2014 doctors, engineers, lawyers, farmers, social workers and others \u2014 to constitutional assemblies to draft proposed charters. But those bodies ended up creating long, complicated constitutions that were each in the partisan mold of the political side that controlled the assembly.<\/p>\n The left-leaning assembly last year offered a constitution that would have expanded abortion rights, given Indigenous groups more sovereignty<\/a> and enshrined a record number of rights<\/a>, including to housing, internet access, clean air and care \u201cfrom birth to death.\u201d After 62 percent of ballots rejected that text, voters elected conservatives to control a new constitutional assembly. That group created a proposal that would have given the private sector a prominent role in areas like health, education and social security.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Each proposal engendered fierce opposition, and voters were overwhelmed with complex and often contradictory information about how the texts would change the country. Misinformation flew from both sides.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Gladys Flores, 40, a street vendor, said Sunday that she was voting against the conservative proposal \u201cbecause all of our rights will be taken away\u201d and \u201cour pensions will be lower.\u201d While the proposed text would have cemented Chile\u2019s current pension system, which has been criticized for meager payouts, it was unlikely to actually reduce pension payments or significantly take away rights.<\/p>\n The conversation over the proposed constitutions often devolved into debates over politics rather than policy. Leading up to Sunday\u2019s vote, for instance, Chile\u2019s surging far-right Republic Party, which had helped write the proposal, focused its pitch not on the text\u2019s merits, but on the idea that voting for it would punish President Gabriel Boric<\/a>, a leftist who has become deeply unpopular as people are concerned about a rise in crime.<\/p>\n Felipe Ag\u00fcero, a political scientist who has studied Chile\u2019s transition to democracy from the military dictatorship that ruled the country from 1973 to 1990, said that the constitutional process was fraught because replacing the dictatorship-era charter had been put off for so long. That has made both the left and the right eager to capitalize on the rare chance to significantly sway the country\u2019s future, he said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n \u201cThey decided that we have to use this opportunity to turn things around in a big way \u2014 that this was a once-in-a-lifetime chance,\u201d he said. As a result, \u201cthere was no interest in reaching a broader consensus.\u201d<\/p>\n Rolando Moreno, 65, a business administrator, said Sunday that he voted to reject the text because it was a partisan document. \u201cIt was politicians who created it and I hate politics,\u201d he said. \u201cThere\u2019s not going to be any change with these kind of people.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n He said that he was tired of the constitutional process, which in four years has required various national votes on whether to keep the current constitution, on who should write a new text and on the two proposed replacements. \u201cIt\u2019s a joke to be having to vote six, seven times in five years,\u201d he said. \u201cWe are not their clowns.\u201d<\/p>\n