After thirty weeks as @Soriek's passion project, Transnational Thursday is getting added to the auto-post bot. But it hasn't been added to the bot yet, I think, so I'm posting it this week, with apologies to anyone whose plans I've mussed!
Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Chile
Chile held their referendum on a new constitution prepared by the conservatives and rejected it by 56%. The comes two years after the country agreed they wanted to replace their dictator-era constitution, and a little more than a year after they rejected a constitution prepared by left wingers. At this point no one is happy with what they have, but they don’t see eye-to-eye enough to agree on something new.
President Boric has said they will not try again, and maybe it really is for the best to leave this chapter behind. He has now said he will focus on taxes and pension reforms.
What do "liberal" and "conservative" mean in current-day Chile? Is the difference mostly down to economic policy?
There are definitely economic differences but maybe less so than in the past; the growing cleavages nowadays are social/political.
For much of the 2000s the Chilean left standard bearer was actually the Socialist Party (the one that was suspended during the right wing dictatorship) and their successive party/coalitions, which have quickly slid into a tiny minority. The current President Gabriel Boric founded his own party, Social Convergence, which does contain elements / prior parties focused on socialist economics but is more about left wing social politics, such as gender equality, indigenous rights, LGBT rights, and environmentalism. During the election commenters were surprised how little he leaned (beyond rhetoric) into actual economically populist policies despite there being a pretty high demand for them (Chile had just come out of big protests over living costs that began with a hike in train fares). He did try nationalize lithium ion but probably knew that was impossible without the constitution being amended. He's also tried (and failed) to advance better labor laws, healthcare, and pension reform, so the economic differences between the parties are there and genuine.
The conservatives (actually called the Republican party) are all in on free market economics, but are also much farther to the right politically than previous conservative opposition. They're pretty much the reverse of all the stuff Boric is into, they make a lot of hay out of opposing immigration, gay marriage, indigenous rights, abortion, yadda yadda. Their leader Antonio Kast, the runner up against Boric, is a pretty open Pinochet apologist.
Interesting, thank you! Much more similarity to American CW than I would've expected. Even down to both sides being right of center economically.
No problem! It is in ways surprisingly similar at times to the US, though I do think it's still fair to call SC center-left / left rather than center-right economically (though the Socialist Party may well disagree). Ironically while the two parties' divisions are largest socially, it probably was mostly the poor economy and persistent inflation that lost the left the last legislative elections. Chileans have used up some of their patience on politicians putting exciting hot button stuff over bread and butter issues, a lesson for the conservatives after their failed attempt at a constitution as well.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link