Mr. Director:

Maximalist proposals are usually a bad omen for the success and legitimacy of a constitutional text. This is explained by multiple theoretical and practical reasons of which examples abound in our national context.

The recently rejected text is a textbook case on how to infect a Fundamental Charter with public policy contents (health or housing) and with the aim of avoiding highly controversial discussions (abortion and euthanasia). Thus, the possibility of errors, misunderstandings and criticisms grows considerably, at the same time that it becomes a rigid and cryptic text.

For its part, the current Constitution -with several decibels less- was also used as a trump card to settle, on the other side, a series of political debates that were perfectly reasonable and necessary at the time.

If it is true that the commitment to a new constitution is that it should be "the house of all", the starting point should be to agree on a Charter that soberly reflects our minimum and fundamental covenants. From there on, politics must be empowered to fulfill its natural task of mediating our differences and reaching agreements.

Letter by Jorge Hagedorn, Coordinator of the Constitutional Area of IdeaPaís, published by La Segunda in the September 6, 2022 edition.