Chile

• ‘Chile ha privatizado por completo el agua, lo cual significa que el robo está institucionalizado’

  Al cabo de un año signado por la movilización masiva en torno de la emergencia climática, CIVICUS está entrevistando a activistas, líderes y expertos de la sociedad civil acerca de los principales desafíos ambientales que enfrentan en sus respectivos contextos y las acciones que han emprendido para hacerles frente. CIVICUS conversa con Rodrigo Mundaca, ingeniero agrónomo y vocero nacional del Movimiento de Defensa por el acceso al Agua, la Tierra y la Protección del Medioambiente (MODATIMA), una organización nacida en 2010 en la provincia chilena de Petorca, región de Valparaíso, para defender los derechos de los campesinos, trabajadores y habitantes de la zona. Desde la década del noventa la región ha sido afectada por el acaparamiento de las aguas por parte del negocio agroindustrial en colusión con el establishment político.

  

  ¿Cuál es el principal problema ambiental en tu contexto?

  El principal problema es el agua. Vivimos en un territorio caracterizado fundamentalmente por el monocultivo de palta o aguacate, un frutal de origen tropical cuya producción demanda enormes cantidades de agua, que está en manos de grandes productores que secaron nuestro territorio y comprometieron la vida de nuestras comunidades. El nuestro es un caso extremo: Chile ha privatizado por completo el agua, lo cual significa que el robo está institucionalizado. Claramente Chile ha priorizado a la industria extractiva por sobre el derecho al agua de las comunidades.

  La privatización de las fuentes de agua en Chile data de la dictadura de Augusto Pinochet (1973-1990). La Constitución de 1980 consagró la propiedad privada del agua. Esto se mantuvo, e incluso se profundizó, después de la transición democrática, ya que también se privatizó el saneamiento. El proceso de privatización de las sanitarias se inició el año 1998, durante el gobierno del democristiano Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle. Hoy día Chile paga las tarifas más altas de América Latina para consumir agua potable, que es de propiedad de grandes empresas transnacionales. En rigor, el grupo Suez, Aguas de Barcelona, Marubeni y la administradora de fondos de pensiones de los profesores de Ontario (Canadá) controlan el 90% del suministro de agua potable.

  Ahora mismo el gobierno de Sebastián Piñera está rematando ríos. Piñera llegó al gobierno con el proyecto de apuntalar la certeza jurídica de la propiedad de los derechos de agua, y en su gabinete hay varios ministros con derechos de aprovechamiento de aguas constituidos, liderados por el ministro de Agricultura, Antonio Walker Prieto. Este ministro y su familia son propietarios de más de 29.000 litros por segundo, lo cual equivale al suministro continuo de agua de aproximadamente 17 millones de personas.

  ¿Cómo es eso de que alguien es dueño de los ríos y puede impedir que otros hagan uso de las aguas?

  La Constitución chilena de 1980 establece literalmente que los derechos de los particulares sobre las aguas, reconocidos o constituidos en conformidad a la ley, otorgan a sus titulares la propiedad sobre ella. En 1981, el Código de Aguas estableció que el agua es un bien nacional de uso público pero también un bien económico. La propiedad del agua se separó del dominio de la tierra, de modo que hay propietarios de agua que no tienen tierra y propietarios de tierra que no tienen agua. Es prerrogativa del Estado conceder derechos de aprovechamiento del agua. Estos derechos se dividen en dos categorías: derechos sobre agua para uso de consumo y derechos sobre agua para uso no consuntivo, por ejemplo para la generación de electricidad. En la primera categoría, el 77% de los derechos está en manos del sector agrícola y forestal, el 13% en el sector minero, el 7% en el sector industrial y aproximadamente 3% en el sector sanitario. En cuanto a los derechos de aprovechamiento del agua para uso no consuntivo, el 81% está en manos de una empresa público-privada italiana. Los portadores de derechos de aprovechamiento pueden vender o arrendar agua en el mercado.

  En 2018, el gobierno de Piñera presentó un proyecto de ley para dar certeza jurídica a la propiedad privada del agua a perpetuidad e introducir remates de agua. Actualmente en Chile se están rematando 38 ríos; básicamente, el Estado remata los litros por segundo que corren por ese río. Mientras esto ocurre en algunos territorios donde todavía hay agua, los territorios donde se concentra el 67% de la población chilena, unos 12 millones de personas, son zonas de emergencia hídrica. Nuestra región, Valparaíso, es zona de catástrofe hídrica por sequía. Es inaudito que por un lado haya semejante cantidad de población con serias dificultades para acceder al agua potable y que por otro lado el Estado esté rematando ríos.

  ¿Qué trabajo hacen ustedes para lograr el reconocimiento del derecho al agua?

  Desde hace más de quince años visibilizamos el conflicto de las aguas en nuestro territorio. Si bien surgimos en la región de Valparaíso, desde 2016 nuestra organización tiene alcance nacional. Luchamos en todo el país por la regulación del agua como un bien común. El derecho al agua es un derecho humano fundamental.

  Nuestra estrategia primigenia fue instalar la lucha por el agua, visibilizar el conflicto y llevar al Parlamento la discusión de la derogación de la propiedad privada del agua, a pesar de nuestra falta de confianza en la casta política que tiene en sus manos la tarea de legislar y fiscalizar.

  En el año 2016 dimos un paso importante con una estrategia internacional que dio a conocer en todo el mundo que en nuestra provincia se viola el derecho humano al agua para producir aguacate. Salimos en un reportaje de la televisión alemana titulado “Palta súperalimento asesino ambiental”, varios reportajes en The Guardian que hablan de cómo los chilenos se están quedando sin agua, el reportaje de RT en español, “Las lágrimas secas de Chile”, y varios más. El año pasado Netflix destinó un episodio de su programa Rotten al negocio del aguacate y a la violación del derecho humano al agua en Chile. Hemos tenido buenas repercusiones; solo en 2019 obtuvimos dos reconocimientos internacionales: el Premio Internacional de Derechos Humanos entregado por la ciudad de Nuremberg, Alemania, en septiembre; y el Premio Danielle Mitterrand, entregado por la Fundación France Libertés, en noviembre.

  Otra cosa que hacemos es formar cuadros. Tenemos programas de formación de largo aliento y hacemos un trabajo permanente de interpelación teórica y política. También nos movilizamos. En el marco del estallido social que se dio en Chile a partir del 18 de octubre de 2019 hemos hecho escuchar nuestra demanda. Es evidente que, si bien a nivel nacional las principales demandas pasan por recuperar los fondos de pensión de los trabajadores y mejorar la educación y la salud, en algunas regiones más al norte y más al sur de la capital la demanda más importante es la recuperación del agua como un bien común, como un derecho humano.

  Además de movilizarnos, hacemos un trabajo territorial que supone acciones de mayor radicalidad como cortes de ruta y ocupaciones. Entre las acciones directas que se hacen en los territorios están las acciones de recuperación de pozos y de destrucción de drenes. Algunas organizaciones territoriales de base toman pozos de propiedad de empresas mineras, resisten en la toma tanto como pueden – a veces durante 60, 70 días – y desvían el agua hacia su comunidad. En sitios donde ya no hay agua en los ríos, el agua subterránea es capturada a través de drenes, obras de ingeniería que capturan, canalizan y transportan toda el agua subterránea. Algunas comunidades destruyen los drenes que conducen el agua para uso del agronegocio, por ejemplo de las empresas forestales. Las acciones de resistencia han aumentado desde el comienzo del estallido social en octubre de 2019.

  La lucha por el agua es radical porque erosiona las bases de la desigualdad. Es que el origen de las principales fortunas chilenas es la apropiación de los bienes comunes, y básicamente del agua y la tierra. La fortuna de presidente Piñera no es una excepción.

  ¿Han enfrentado represalias a causa de este activismo?

  Sí, a causa de nuestra estrategia de visibilización del conflicto de las aguas varios compañeros han sido amenazados de muerte. Por eso en 2017 Amnistía Internacional hizo una campaña mundial que recolectó más de 50.000 firmas para que se garantizaran nuestras vidas.

  A mí entre 2012 y 2014 me llevaron 24 veces a cuatro tribunales distintos porque denuncié a quien fue ministro del Interior en el primer gobierno de Michelle Bachelet (2006-2010), que además de ser un funcionario destacado de la Democracia Cristiana era un empresario que desviaba agua para su campo para producir aguacate y cítricos. Lo denuncié en 2012 en una entrevista con CNN y eso me significó 24 comparecencias en tribunales a lo largo de dos años. Finalmente fui condenado, primero a cinco años de cárcel, que luego fueron reducidos a 540 días y después a 61, y finalmente nuestros abogados lograron que me dieran en libertad condicional; tenía que ir a firmar los primeros cinco días de cada mes. También tuvimos que pagar una multa.

  Hemos sido agredidos y amenazados de muerte muchas veces. En noviembre de 2019 una investigación publicada en un medio electrónico reveló que éramos blanco de vigilancia de la inteligencia policial. Sin embargo, en respuesta a un recurso de amparo contra Carabineros, en febrero de 2020 la Corte Suprema emitió un fallo donde dice que el seguimiento de que somos objeto no viola derechos constitucionales. Así es Chile en toda su inmunda injusticia.

  La conducta de los gobiernos ha sido invariable, más allá del signo político del gobierno de turno. Todos los gobiernos han hecho acuerdos para mantener el modelo privado de aguas porque es un negocio, un negocio que le tributa a la casta política. Cuando salen de su cargo público, los funcionarios pasan a ocupar cargos en los directorios de las empresas que se apropian del agua.

  ¿Ustedes se sumaron en 2019 a las movilizaciones globales por el cambio climático?

  En Chile nos venimos movilizando desde mucho antes. En 2013 tuvimos nuestra primera marcha nacional por la recuperación del agua y la tierra, y desde entonces nos movilizamos cada año el 22 de abril, que es el Día de la Tierra. También lo hacemos para conmemorar el Día Mundial del Agua el 22 de marzo. Llevamos marchando mucho tiempo. En Chile hay una crisis social, ambiental y de humanidad. Estamos ante la necesidad de salvaguardar derechos humanos que son esenciales para el cumplimiento de los demás derechos. El derecho humano al agua es una condición básica para poder acceder a todos los demás derechos.

  También llevamos mucho tiempo movilizándonos para denunciar que el modelo de desarrollo de Chile es profundamente contaminante, profundamente depredador. Tenemos privatizados los recursos del mar: siete familias son dueñas de todos los recursos marinos de Chile. Tenemos cinco zonas de sacrificio, es decir, áreas que concentran una gran cantidad de industrias contaminantes. Se trata de Coronel, Huasco, Mejillones, Quintero y Tocopilla. Las zonas de sacrificio son no solamente un problema ambiental sino también un problema social, de discriminación contra las comunidades más pobres y vulnerables. Están saturadas de plantas termoeléctricas a carbón y, en algunos casos, de fundiciones de cobre. Las termoeléctricas son 28: 15 de propiedad estadounidense, ocho francesas, tres italianas, y dos de capitales nacionales. Los habitantes de estas zonas han soportado la emisión de gases tóxicos y metales pesados durante décadas. Nosotros llevamos años movilizándonos en estas zonas en defensa de los bienes naturales comunes.

  ¿Se han involucrado ustedes en foros internacionales sobre medio ambiente y cambio climático?

  Sí, yo mismo me involucré personalmente varias veces. Por ejemplo, en 2014, antes de que me condenaran, estuve en París, Francia, invitado por varias organizaciones de la sociedad civil europeas a un foro sobre defensores y defensoras de derechos humanos, donde me tocó hablar del modelo privado de agua y de tierra. En 2018 fui invitado a Dublín, Irlanda, a un encuentro mundial de defensores de derechos humanos en riesgo. Ese mismo año también fui invitado a un encuentro regional de defensores de derechos humanos en Lima, Perú.

  También nos hemos involucrado en foros intergubernamentales como la Conferencia de las Partes (COP) de la Convención Marco de Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio Climático. En 2019, Chile iba a ser el país anfitrión de la COP 25, y la movilización mundial por el clima que hubo durante ese año tuvo un eco tremendo en Chile. Obviamente ni el Foro de Cooperación Económica Asia-Pacífico, proyectado para el mes de noviembre, ni la COP 25, proyectada para los primeros días de diciembre, pudieron realizarse en Chile, porque el gobierno fue completamente desbordado por la movilización popular que se inició a fines de octubre, y porque respondió a ella con violaciones sistemáticas de los derechos humanos.

  Varias compañeras nuestras estuvieron en la COP 25 en Madrid, España, y tuvieron la posibilidad de hablar con el juez español Baltasar Garzón y con algunos funcionarios de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. De hecho, poco después de este encuentro tuvimos en Chile una reunión con Baltasar Garzón, que fue el juez que enjuició al ex dictador Pinochet y lo hizo detener en Gran Bretaña. Garzón se impresionó muchísimo con el modelo de agua y los relatos de nuestras compañeras. También recientemente estuvimos con la delegación de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) durante su visita a Chile. Nos reunimos con Soledad García Muñoz, la Relatora Especial de la CIDH sobre Derechos Económicos, Sociales, Culturales y Ambientales, y le presentamos el panorama de Chile y lo que significa vivir privados de agua.

  ¿Te parece que en foros como la COP hay espacio como para que la sociedad civil tenga voz e influencia?

  Yo tengo una opinión crítica sobre la COP. Creo que en general es una feria de vanidades a la que van muchos mandatarios, muchos ministros de Medio Ambiente y Agricultura, a prometerle al mundo lo que no pueden cumplir en sus propios países. Los principales países emisores de gases de efecto invernadero tienen líderes que ya sea niegan el cambio climático o se la pasan hablando sobre el cambio climático pero no parecen tener la menor intención de modificar el comportamiento económico depredador de su país. Los principales países responsables del cambio climático, del calentamiento global, son actualmente los principales detractores de la COP.

  Con todo, las cumbres ofrecen un espacio a la sociedad civil, desde donde es posible interpelar a los poderosos, insistir sobre la injusticia climática que afecta a todo el planeta y promover la construcción de un nuevo modelo de desarrollo que sea viable y económicamente competitivo a la vez que socialmente más justo y ecológicamente más sano. Pero para eso necesitamos nuevos paradigmas: no podemos seguir pensando que hay perspectivas de desarrollo ilimitado en un planeta que cuenta con recursos naturales finitos.

  El espacio cívico en Chile es clasificado como ‘estrecho’ por elCIVICUS Monitor.

  Contáctese con MODATIMA a través de susitio web y su perfil deFacebook, o siga a@Modatima_cl en Twitter.

• ‘Chile has entirely privatised water, which means that theft is institutionalised’

   

  Following a year marked by massive mobilisation on the climate emergency, CIVICUS is interviewing civil society activists, leaders and experts about the main environmental challenges they face in their contexts and the actions they are taking. CIVICUS speaks with Rodrigo Mundaca, Agronomist and National Spokesperson of the Defence Movement for Access to Water, Land and Environmental Protection (MODATIMA), an organisation established in 2010 in the Chilean province of Petorca, in the Valparaíso region, to defend the rights of farmers, workers and local people. Since the 1990s, the region has been affected by the massive appropriation of water by agribusiness in collusion with the political establishment.

  

  What is the main environmental issue in your context?

  The main problem is water. We live in a territory characterised mainly by the monoculture of avocado, the production of which requires huge amounts of water. Water is in the hands of large producers who have dried out our territory and compromised the lives of our communities. Ours is an extreme case: Chile has entirely privatised water, which means that theft is institutionalised. Chile has clearly prioritised extractive industries over the rights of communities to water.

  The privatisation of water sources in Chile dates back to the Pinochet dictatorship of 1973 to 1990. The 1980 Constitution enshrined the private ownership of water. This was maintained, and even deepened, following the democratic transition, since sanitation was also privatised. The privatisation process of sanitation began in 1998, under the administration led by Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle, a Christian Democrat. Nowadays, people in Chile pay the highest rates in Latin America for drinking water, which is owned by large transnational corporations. Overall, the Suez group, Aguas de Barcelona, Marubeni and the Ontario teachers’ pension fund administrator from Canada control 90 per cent of the drinking water supply.

  Right now, President Sebastián Piñera's government is auctioning off rivers. Piñera came into government with a mission to underpin the legal certainty of water rights ownership, and his cabinet includes several ministers who own rights to water use, the most prominent of which is the Minister of Agriculture, Antonio Walker Prieto. This minister and his family own more than 29,000 litres per second, which is equivalent to the continuous water supply used by approximately 17 million people.

  Is it as simple as someone owning the rivers and being able to prevent others from using the water?

  Yes, the 1980 Chilean Constitution literally states that the rights of individuals over water, recognised or constituted in accordance with the law, grant their bearers ownership over it. In 1981, the Water Code established that water is a national good for public use but also an economic good. Water ownership was separated from land ownership, so that there are water owners who have no land and landowners who have no water. It is the state's prerogative to grant rights for water use. These rights fall into two categories: water rights for consumption use and water rights for non-consumptive use, for example for generating electricity. In the first category, 77 per cent of the rights are held by the agricultural and forestry sector, 13 per cent by the mining sector, seven per cent by the industrial sector and approximately three per cent by the health sector. As for the rights for the use of water that is not consumed, 81 per cent are in the hands of an Italian public-private company. The owners of exploitation rights can sell or lease water use in the marketplace.

  In 2018, the Piñera administration proposed a bill aimed at providing legal certainty to perpetuity to private owners of water and introducing water auctions. Currently, 38 rivers in Chile are being auctioned off; basically, what the state does is auction off the litres per second that run through a river. While this occurs in some territories where there is still water, areas accounting for 67 per cent of the Chilean population – some 12 million people – have become water emergency areas. Our region, Valparaíso, is a zone of water catastrophe due to drought. This is unheard of: while such a large population has serious difficulties in accessing drinking water, the state is auctioning off rivers.

  What kind of work do you do to promote the recognition of access to water as a right?

  For more than 15 years we have made visible the conflict over water in our territory. Although we originated in the Valparaíso region, from 2016 onwards our organisation has worked nationwide. We fight at the national level for water to be regulated as a common good. The right to water is a fundamental human right.

  Our original strategy was to kickstart the struggle for water, render the conflict visible and bring debate to parliament about the need to repeal private ownership of water, despite our lack of confidence in the political class that has the responsibility to make the law and watch over its implementation.

  In 2016 we took an important step by putting forward an international strategy that made it known throughout the world that in our province the human right to water was being violated in order to grow avocados. We were featured in a German TV report, ‘Avocado: Superfood and Environmental Killer’, in several articles in The Guardian describing how Chileans are running out of water and in an RT report in Spanish, ‘Chile’s Dry Tears’, among others. Last year Netflix dedicated an episode of its Rotten show to the avocado business and the violation of the human right to water in Chile. We have had a positive reception. In 2019 alone, we received two international awards: the International Human Rights Prize awarded by the city of Nuremberg, Germany, in September, and the Danielle Mitterrand Prize, awarded by the France Libertés Foundation, in November.

  Another thing we do is develop activists and leaders. We have long-term training programmes and do ongoing work to develop theoretical and political thinking. We also mobilise. In the context of the widespread protests that started in Chile on 18 October 2019, we have made our demands heard. Clearly, although at the national level the main demands concern the restitution of workers’ pension funds and improvements in education and health, in some regions further north and further south of the capital, the most important demand concerns the recovery of water as a common good and a human right.

  In addition to mobilising, our work on the ground involves more radical actions such as roadblocks and occupations. Among direct actions carried out on the ground are the seizure of wells and the destruction of drains. Some local grassroots organisations seize wells owned by mining companies, resist as long as they can – sometimes for 60 or 70 days – and divert the water to their communities. In places where rivers no longer carry water, groundwater has been captured through drains, works of engineering that capture, channel and carry all groundwater away. Some communities destroy the drains that transport water for use by agribusiness such as forestry companies. Such actions of resistance have increased since the start of the social protests in October 2019.

  The struggle for water is a radical one because it erodes the foundations of inequality. The origin of the major Chilean fortunes is the appropriation of common goods, basically water and land. President Piñera's fortune is no exception.

  Have you faced reprisals because of your activism?

  Yes, because of our strategy to give visibility to the conflict over water, several of our activists have been threatened with death. That is why in 2017 Amnesty International conducted a worldwide campaign that collected more than 50,000 signatures to demand protection for us.

  Between 2012 and 2014, I was summoned 24 times by four different courts because I denounced a public official who had been Minister of the Interior under the first administration of President Michelle Bachelet (2006 to 2010). As well as being a leading Christian Democratic Party official, this person was a business owner who diverted water toward his properties to grow avocado and citrus. I reported this in 2012, during an interview with CNN, and that cost me 24 court appearances over two years. I was finally sentenced, first to five years in jail, which were then reduced to 540 days and then to 61, and finally our lawyers managed to put me on probation. I had to show up and sign on the first five days of each month. We also had to pay a fine.

  We have been attacked and threatened with death many times. In November 2019, an investigation published on a news site revealed that we were being targeted by police intelligence surveillance. However, in response to an amparo appeal – a petition for basic rights – against the police, in February 2020 the Supreme Court issued a ruling that the surveillance to which we are subjected does not violate our constitutional rights. This is Chile in all of its filthy injustice.

  Government behaviour has always been the same, regardless of the political colour of the incumbent government. All governments have reached agreements to keep the private water model because it is business, and one that is highly profitable for the political class. When they leave their positions in government, former public officials go on to occupy positions in the boards of the companies that appropriate the water.

  Did you join the global climate mobilisations of 2019?

  In Chile we have been mobilising since long before. In 2013 we had our first national march for the recovery of water and land, and from then on we have mobilised every year on 22 April, Earth Day. We also demonstrate to commemorate World Water Day on 22 March. We have been on the move for a long time. Chile is going through a social, environmental and humanity crisis. We face the need to safeguard human rights that are essential for the fulfilment of other rights. The human right to water is a basic precondition for people to be able to access all other rights.

  We have also been mobilised for a long time to denounce that Chile's development model is extremely polluting and deeply predatory. We have privatised marine resources: seven families own all of Chile’s marine resources. Our country has five areas of sacrifice, that is, areas that concentrate a large number of polluting industries. These are in Colonel, Huasco, Mussels, Quintero and Tocopilla. The areas of sacrifice are not only an environmental problem but also a social problem; they discriminate against the poorest and most vulnerable communities. They are overflowing with coal-fired thermoelectric plants and, in some cases, with copper smelters. The are 28 thermoelectric plants: 15 of these are US companies, eight are French, three are Italian and two are owned by domestic capital. The population in these areas has endured the emission of toxic gases and heavy metals for decades. We have been mobilising in these areas for years in defence of common natural assets.

  Have you engaged in international forums on the environment and climate change?

  Yes, I have been involved several times. In 2014, before I was convicted, I went to Paris, France by invitation of several European civil society organisations to attend a forum on human rights defenders, where I spoke about the private water and land model. In 2018 I was invited to a global meeting of human rights defenders at risk, held in Dublin, Ireland. That same year I was also invited to a regional meeting of human rights defenders that took place in Lima, Peru.

  We have also been involved in intergovernmental forums such as the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In 2019, Chile was going to host the COP 25, and the global mobilisation for climate throughout the year had a tremendous echo in Chile. Obviously neither the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, planned for November, nor COP 25, scheduled for early December, could be held in Chile, because the government was completely overwhelmed by the popular mobilisation that began in late October, and because it responded to this with systematic human rights violations.

  Several of our members were at COP 25 in Madrid, Spain, and were able to speak with the Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón and with some officials of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Shortly after this meeting we had a meeting in Chile with Baltasar Garzón, the judge who prosecuted former dictator Pinochet and had him arrested in the UK. Garzón was very impressed with the water model and the stories our activists told him. Also recently we met with the delegation of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) during their visit to Chile. We met with Soledad García Muñoz, the IACHR Special Rapporteur on Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights, and presented an overview of the Chilean situation and what it means to live deprived of water.

  Do you think that forums such as the COP offer space for civil society to speak up and exercise influence?

  I have a critical opinion of the COP. I think that in general it is a fair of vanities attended by many presidents, and many ministers of environment and agriculture, to promise the world what they cannot fulfil in their own countries. The main greenhouse gas emitting countries have leaders who either deny climate change, or are talking the talk about climate change but don’t seem to have the intention to make any change in their country’s predatory economic behaviour. The countries that are most responsible for climate change and global warming are currently the main detractors of the COP.

  However, the summits do offer a space for civil society, from where it is possible to challenge the powerful, speak up about the climate injustice that affects the entire planet and promote the construction of a new development model that is viable and economically competitive while also socially fairer and ecologically healthier. But for that we need new paradigms: we cannot continue to think that there are unlimited development prospects on a planet that has finite natural resources.

  Civic space in Chile is classified as ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with MODATIMA through theirwebsite andFacebook page, or follow@Modatima_cl on Twitter.

• CHILE: ‘Anti-rights groups become stronger when their narrative emanates from the government’

  

  As part of our 2019thematic report, we are interviewing civil society activists, leaders and experts about their experiences and actions in the face of backlash from anti-rights groups and their strategies to strengthen progressive narratives and civil society responses. CIVICUS speaks to Héctor Pujols, spokesperson for Chile’s National Immigrant Coordination. The Coordination is a network that brings together activists and organisations that work for the defence of the human rights of Chile’s migrant population and advocates for legislative advances and the implementation of inclusive public policies towards migrant communities. 

  Can you tell us what kind of work the National Immigrant Coordination does?

  The Coordination is a network of organisations, migrants’ groups and movements; we think that migrants need their own organisations. The Coordination has existed since 2014, but many organisations that are part of it, especially those of Peruvian immigrants, have been around for 20 to 25 years. Our membership is diverse and includes cultural organisations; thematic ones, dedicated for instance to labour or housing issues; sectoral ones, such as the Secretariat of Immigrant Women; those that are territorial in nature, linked to particular communes; and others that are organised by nationality, and seek to provide spaces and opportunities to Argentine, Ecuadorian, or Peruvian communities.

  One of the Coordination’s main tasks, although not the only one, is political advocacy at the national level to improve the inclusion of the migrant population. We do it by organising ourselves as migrants, and coordinating with other organisations, including unions and civil society organisations of other kinds. 

  What does the Coordination think about the draft Aliens Law currently under debate in the Chilean Senate?

  Historically, at least in contemporary times, Chile has not had a flow of immigration of comparable dimensions to other Latin American countries. The phenomenon increased in the 1990s, with Bolivian and Peruvian immigration flows, but it has been over the past 10 years that it has become more significant, with an increase in the number of immigrants coming from other countries in the region, mainly Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and, more recently, Venezuela.

  In this context, about five or six years ago talk began about the need to update the 1975 Aliens Act, which had been established in the context of the dictatorship and had a national security focus. This law views the migrant as a foreign agent, an ideological agitator, someone who seeks to import the revolution. When this law was made during the dictatorship, the migrant that lawmakers had in mind was the typical one of times of the Popular Unity, Chile’s former leftist ruling party – Argentinians, Cubans and Uruguayans who came to support the leftist government or were seeking safe haven after fleeing other governments that persecuted them.

  The new migratory context is quite different, and there has been broad consensus that the 1975 law does not conform to the current reality. For years the Coordination and other organisations have been demanding a new legal framework that enables the inclusion of the migrant population.

  However, the debate has been complex and over the past year, after President Sebastián Piñera‘s inauguration, the government introduced a very similar bill to the one they had already submitted to Congress in 2013: one that shifts the focus from the foreigner viewed as an external agitator towards the foreigner as an economic asset, whose value depends on how much money they bring in their pockets. A complex debate ensued in which Chile has tried to position itself in the world by adopting a visa system similar to those of countries such as Australia or Canada, without the understanding that the migratory context and the characteristics of immigration in Chile are not the same as in those countries. This bill has already been passed by the House and is now in the Senate.

  We think that, if passed, this law would greatly encourage irregular migration, which is already a big problem in Chile. It would encourage people to arrive as tourists and overstay their visas, with no prospect of regularising their situation even if they get a job. An irregular migratory status negatively affects access to all rights – to health, education and even to decent work. A person who cannot sign an employment contract will work anyway, because they have to make a living, but they will do so in much more precarious conditions. In sum, on the surface the bill adopts civil society discourse on the need to renew the legal framework, but it is fundamentally an anti-rights initiative.

  The exercise of civic freedoms by migrants seems to have intensified. How do migrants view themselves in relationship to their citizenship status?

  I think we do not see the exercise of our rights to organise, mobilise and claim our rights as tied to any citizenship status because the Chilean Constitution equates citizenship with nationality, as a result of which foreigners cannot be citizens. However, the Constitution also establishes that after five years of residence foreigners are allowed to vote. And regardless of length of residence or the rights assigned to us by the Constitution and the laws, in practice we exercise other rights that are related to being a citizen - we organise, mobilise and do political advocacy, even though this is banned by the Aliens Act.

  The Aliens Act lists attacks against the interests of the state and interference with political situations of the state as reasons for expulsion. The ways it is interpreted and enforced are very arbitrary: it always results in the expulsion of people with progressive or critical views, rather that people with far-right political leanings. Not long ago, in 2017, some young Peruvians were expelled for having books on Marxism. The Coordination submitted an amparo petition – an appeal for the protection of basic rights – and won, but the expulsion order had already been executed and they were already out of the country.

  This was not an isolated case; there have been several others. An Italian journalist was expelled because he did visual communications for the mobilisation process of a very important union. A Basque colleague was also expelled because of his involvement with the indigenous Mapuche communities; he was accused of having links with ETA, the Basque terrorist organisation. This was proven false but he was expelled anyway. All this happened under the administration of former President Michelle Bachelet, that is, independently of the incumbent government’s leanings.

  You were in the middle of the discussion of the bill when calls for an anti-migrant mobilisation began. Who were the groups behind this mobilisation?

  These groups were not new. They had already made another call before but it had not resonated as it did this time. These are groups linked to a long-existing far right, the kind of far right that never dies in any country. Although perhaps its presence declines at times, it always remains latent, waiting for the opportunity to resurface. These are groups that defend the dictatorship but know that if they go out to the streets to shout ‘Viva Pinochet’ many people will reject them. So they find different themes that allow them to further their narrative. For instance, they took advantage of the salience of the rejection of so-called gender ideology and joined anti-abortion marches, and now they are working around the issue of immigration.

  Far-right groups are characterised by an extremely simple and exclusionary discourse: the other, the one that’s different, the one coming from outside, the stranger who is not Chilean – they are the enemy, because they are the cause of all the country's ills. These groups come from various places, but they all find protection under the current government’s institutional discourse, which blames everything on immigration. Weeks ago, President Piñera said that the increase in unemployment in Chile was caused by the arrival of migrants, even against his own Minister of Labour’s denials. His former Minister of Health said that the increase in HIV/AIDS in Chile was the migrant population’s fault. This institutional discourse, based on falsehoods, is taking root and is being taken advantage of by far-right groups.

  What explains the fact that this time around they have had more of an appeal than in the past?

  These groups become stronger when their narrative emanates from the government. The proposals put forward by the far right are the same as the government’s: for example, to deny healthcare to people with under two years of residence and to eliminate access to education. The government says, ‘let’s take rights away from immigrants’ and these groups move just one step further and say, ‘let’s kick immigrants out’. The underlying diagnosis is the same in both cases: we are being invaded, they are coming to take our jobs, they are coming to take our social benefits, Chile First.

  Additionally, in this case social media is playing an amplification role. These groups have learned how to use social media. They learned a lot from Brazil’s experience; some actually travelled there to support then-candidate Bolsonaro. The skilful use of Facebook, Instagram and Twitter allows them to reach a wide audience –­ the Chilean who is going through hard times – to whom they offer a simple explanation and a solution: you can't find work; the fault lies with immigrants; the solution is to throw them out.

  You mentioned a curious phenomenon: ultra-nationalist far-right groups that become internationalists, by networking, collaborating and learning from their peers in other countries.

  Yes, there is an ongoing international process in which the Chilean far right learns from what the Argentine far right does, and the Argentinian far right learns from that of Brazil, and so on. The narratives we have heard in Chile are an exact copy of those used by the extreme right in Spain, where the phenomenon of the far-right Vox party emerged almost a year ago. They are an exact copy, even though the Chilean reality is very different. In Spain, the claim that migrants take up all social support was very intense, and in Chile the same discourse was attempted, since it is an international tactic, but not surprisingly it had less of an impact because social support in Chile is very limited. So it is not always working for them; it is a matter of trial and error. But these groups do form a network that is becoming stronger internationally, which is very worrying.

  These groups summoned a mobilisation against immigrants that was scheduled for 12 August 2019, but in the end the march did not materialise. Can you explain what happened?

  The call to the march was spread through social media, and a far-right influencer, a member of one of the organising groups, called on protesters to bear arms to defend themselves against the anti-fascist groups that had summoned a counter-demonstration.

  In Chile it is necessary to request an authorisation to hold a street mobilisation, and in the capital, Santiago, the Municipality is in charge of giving the authorisation. After several conversations, and under pressure from socialorganisations and the Bar Association, which requested that the permit be denied, the Municipality did not authorise the march. There were some isolated incidents caused by about 20 people who attended notwithstanding, but not much else happened.

  The Coordination convened another event on the same day, given that it was complicated for us to support the counter-demonstration held by anti-fascist groups in light of the limitations placed on immigrants’ rights to political participation. On that very same Sunday morning we held an event at the Museum of Memory, a space dedicated to the victims of the dictatorship. The focus of our call was the rejection of hate speech, which today happens to be targeted against immigrants but at other times has been targeted against women or against those who thought differently, and which leads to the practices we experienced under the dictatorship. When you dehumanise a person then you can then torture her, drop her body into the sea or make her disappear. That was our response. Around 150 people attended, which is not that many, but it should be enough to show that we are also part of this country and that we have memory.

  What strategy should adopt the civil society that advocates for the human rights of migrants in the face of anti-rights groups?

  These groups are here to stay, and they have already planned a new demonstration for 7 September 2019. The prevalent narrative focuses on an alleged migrant invasion, so ours is a dispute for common sense, a long-term struggle. We work in a strategic partnership with progressive and democratic movements, but these need to put aside their paternalistic attitude towards the migrant population. We do not want to be treated as helpless people in need of assistance; that is why we are an organisation of migrant persons, not an organisation that defends the rights of migrants. We do not want paternalistic aids; we want equal rights.

  Civic space in Chile is rated as ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with the National Migrants’ Coordination through itswebsite, read Héctor Pujols’blog or follow@HectorPumo and@MigrantesChile on Twitter.

• CHILE: ‘Domestic and care work still falls overwhelmingly on women’

  CIVICUS speaks about International Women’s Day and civil society’s role in combatting gender inequalities in Chile with Cecilia Ananías Soto, founder of Amaranta, an independent civil society organisation (CSO) based in the Chilean city of Concepción, in the Biobío region.

  Amaranta is a feminist space made up of women from the social sciences, humanities and social activism aimed at promoting gender equality and human rights in the spheres of education, health, culture, technology and media. It was founded in early 2018 to give visibility and response to the everyday problems of women, and specifically lesbian, bisexual, transgender, working, migrant, displaced, poor and Indigenous women. Taking a critical, local and decolonial perspective, it carries out training, dialogue, research and advocacy work.

  What impacts has the COVID-19 pandemic had on Chilean women and girls, and how has civil society responded to it?

  The pandemic affected women and girls differentially and disproportionately. In the case of Chile, in the first year of the pandemic there was an explosive increase in requests for help for gender-based violence (GBV). This happened because, in the midst of mandatory quarantines, women and girls were locked in their homes together with their aggressors.

  In addition, because there was no school for a long time and even kindergartens were closed, women were on their own to care for children and sick family members, often having to abandon their work and studies to support their households. Just before the pandemic, female participation in the labour market had reached an all-time high of 53.3 per cent, while after the pandemic it fell back to 41 per cent. It will take a long time to recover women’s participation in the labour force. 

  Faced with this scenario, women and women’s groups built support networks. At the neighbourhood level, women’s groups organised community kitchens and sales or exchange fairs, among other initiatives. Many women’s groups set up helplines because the official ones were not sufficient or did not always respond. Amaranta received hundreds of requests for help with GBV in digital spaces and, despite having a small team, contributed by providing initial support and communicating basic self-care strategies.

  The pandemic forced us to move much of our work into the digital sphere. On the one hand, this allowed us to continue working, to do so safely and to reach much further. But on the other hand, not all people have access to the internet or digital literacy, so we had to find other strategies as well. Now we work by mixing face-to-face and distance gender education with educational and activist materials that we hand out in the streets, such as fanzines and stickers.

  What are the main unresolved women’s rights issues in Chile?

  A big problem is that domestic and care work still falls overwhelmingly on women. This has profound effects on women’s quality of life, because it results in them either abandoning their studies or leaving their jobs to do this unpaid work at home, or trying to become ‘superwomen’ who must be able to do everything, even if they can no longer take it because they so tired.

  This was made clear in a report published in the magazine Revista Ya in late 2020, ‘An x-ray of the zero man‘, so titled because according to the study on which the article was based, 38 per cent of men spend zero hours a week doing housework. Similarly, 71 per cent spend zero hours helping their children with schoolwork and 57 per cent spend zero hours taking care of children. In contrast, the women surveyed spend 14 hours a week more than men caring for children under the age of 14.

  Another major pending issue is that of sexual and reproductive rights. Our right to decide over our own bodies is still not recognised. Abortion is only permitted on three grounds: danger to the life of the pregnant woman, foetal malformations incompatible with life and when the pregnancy is the result of rape. At the same time, there are no comprehensive sex education programmes to prevent unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and sexual violence. During the pandemic, many instances of failure of oral hormonal contraceptives were documented. Many of these had been provided free of charge in public health facilities; as a result, many vulnerable women ended up pregnant, without being able to choose to have an abortion and without receiving any kind of monetary compensation.

  What should be done to reduce gender inequality in Chile?

  At Amaranta, we believe that we must start with non-sexist education, including comprehensive sex education. This is the only way to stop repeating stereotypes that perpetuate inequality from an early age. This is an important element in preventing GBV.

  Laws and public policies that pave the way for a more equitable and inclusive society are also important. Since 2019, Chile has gone through multiple social protests, which have included the feminist movement in a very prominent role. As a result of these protests, we now find ourselves drafting a new constitution which, if approved, we already know will include gender-sensitive justice systems. This is a tremendous step forward for our country, and even a first at the continental level.

  The International Women’s Day theme for 2022 is #BreakTheBias. How have you organised around it?

  Our ongoing campaign as an organisation is about breaking down biases and overcoming prejudices and stereotypes. We do this through education, which can take many forms: from a relatively formal talk or workshop, to recommending a book or handing out a feminist fanzine, to disseminating content through a TikTok video.

  In terms of mobilisation, we remain attentive to all calls from feminist organisations in the area and we will participate in women’s meetings, marches, bike rallies and ‘pañuelazos’ – that is, large gatherings of women wearing green scarves – that are being organised.

  Civic space in Chile is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Amaranta through itswebsite and follow@AmarantaOng on Twitter.

   

• CHILE: ‘Este histórico momento constituyente es un logro de la ciudadanía’

  CIVICUS conversa con Marcela Guillibrand De la Jara, Directora Ejecutiva de la Red de Voluntarios de Chile y Coordinadora General de Ahora Nos Toca Participar. La Red de Voluntarios es una plataforma nacional que reúne a organizaciones de la sociedad civil (OSC) chilenas que promueven el voluntariado.Ahora Nos Toca Participar es una iniciativa de organizaciones sociales agrupadas en el Nuevo Pacto Social (NPS-Chile) que busca contribuir al fortalecimiento de la democracia y a cohesión social mediante la promoción de la participación ciudadana en el plebiscito sobre la reforma constitucional previsto para octubre de 2020 y en el proceso constituyente que se espera que se inicie con el plebiscito. La campaña se centra en la formación ciudadana, la creación de espacios de diálogo y la generación de propuestas para alimentar el proceso constituyente.

  

  A fines de 2019 se convocó a un referéndum para disparar un eventual proceso constituyente. ¿En qué medida se trató de una victoria de la sociedad movilizada?

  En octubre de 2019, Chile reactivó su vida política y social de manera colectiva a lo largo de todo su territorio. La ciudadanía salió a las calles para encontrarse, para hablar y hacer política, como hace mucho tiempo no lo hacía. Fue así como emergieron experiencias participativas propias y no convencionales, localmente enraizadas y con identidad local, cruzadas con expresiones de descontento y frustración por la desigualdad estructural que se venía gestando y manifestando en nuestro país desde largo tiempo atrás.

  Todo esto fue inicialmente motivado por el descontento de los jóvenes respecto de un alza de 30 pesos (0,33 USD) en el costo de la tarifa del sistema de transporte de la capital de Chile, el Metro. En reacción al aumento se produjeron manifestaciones que primero se tradujeron en la evasión del pago del pasaje pero que eventualmente se hicieron eco en consignas tales como “No son 30 pesos, son 30 años”, en referencia al tiempo que llevamos viviendo en democracia – desde la transición que se produjo en 1990 - y al sentimiento compartido por gran parte de la población de que no somos parte de las decisiones que se han venido tomando. Esto fue alimentado por elevados índices de desconfianza en las instituciones, una gran desafección política y la reacción contra un modelo que empujó a nuestro país a una mirada y a una participación más individualista en todos los ámbitos.

  Ante una movilización que no cedía, el 15 de noviembre de 2019 los partidos políticos de distintos sectores firmaron el “Acuerdo por la Paz Social y la Nueva Constitución”. Con ello se abrió a la ciudadanía la oportunidad de decidir a través de un plebiscito, que se realizará el próximo 25 de octubre, si desea una nueva constitución. Mediante el plebiscito la ciudadanía deberá pronunciarse además sobre el mecanismo que se utilizaría para redactar la nueva constitución: una convención constitucional, un órgano íntegramente elegido para ello, o por una convención mixta constitucional, que estaría compuesta por un 50% de congresistas actuales y un 50% de representantes elegidos para este cometido. Para un gran sector de la sociedad este proceso abre una oportunidad única de elegir de manera libre el Chile que queremos. Aunque técnicamente lo que le dio origen fue un acuerdo entre varios sectores políticos, este histórico momento constituyente es indudablemente un logro de la ciudadanía.

  En el marco de este proceso, la sociedad civil también ha logrado un avance histórico en materia de género. Diversas organizaciones sociales que vienen trabajando arduamente en la promoción y defensa de los derechos de las mujeres impulsaron la reivindicación de la paridad de género en el proceso constituyente, y lograron imponerla gracias a la buena recepción de distintos sectores políticos en el Congreso. De imponerse en el plebiscito la opción de redactar una nueva constitución, regirá para la elección de constituyentes la regla de la paridad de género. Sin embargo, ésta solo operará plenamente si se impone la opción de la convención constitucional, ya que todos los integrantes de este órgano serían elegidos en un acto eleccionario. En cambio, en el caso de la convención mixta constitucional, las reglas de paridad operarían para la mitad del cuerpo que será electo, pero no para la mitad constituida por parlamentarios que ya ocupan una banca legislativa.

  ¿Qué posición ha adoptado la sociedad civil chilena frente a la perspectiva de un proceso de reforma constitucional?

  A medida que se acerca la fecha del plebiscito ha aumentado el interés sobre el tema. Llevamos más de cinco meses con cuarentenas focalizadas debido a la pandemia de COVID-19, y las organizaciones con las que nos vinculamos han tenido la atención centrada mayormente en la supervivencia de sus programas y el apoyo a sus poblaciones objetivo, ya que económicamente la pandemia las ha golpeado muy fuerte. Así y todo, de a poco han manifestado un interés creciente en el tema constitucional. Por nuestra parte, hemos mantenido el vínculo con ellas y hemos trabajado en conjunto para ofrecerles una plataforma con contenidos de formación ciudadana de los cuales puedan disponer y articular distintos espacios formativos a través de plataformas digitales y de otros mecanismos para llegar a distintos territorios, tales como las radios o la mensajería de texto.

  En este contexto se lanzó Ahora Nos Toca Participar, una iniciativa de la red Nuevo Pacto Social, que agrupa a poco más de 700 OSC. La iniciativa busca garantizar la formación de la ciudadanía y la participación ciudadana en el contexto del posible proceso constituyente. Nuestro foco está en activar a la ciudadanía, en proveerle de herramientas de formación y en generar de manera conjunta espacios de participación y diálogo para recuperar el protagonismo en la toma de decisiones en nuestro país. Para esto, en una etapa previa al plebiscito, contamos con una serie de contenidos iniciales divididos en varios apartados - participación ciudadana, constitución e itinerario constituyente - que ponemos a disposición de la ciudadanía y las OSC a través de nuestra plataforma web, www.ahoranostocaparticipar.cl, de las redes sociales y de otros dispositivos. A partir de estos contenidos hemos desarrollado una oferta formativa con materiales accesibles en varias lenguas, tales como aymara, mapudungun y rapa nui, así como creole. La idea es que todas las personas que lo deseen puedan encontrar respuestas en estos materiales sobre la constitución y el posible proceso constituyente, de modo de poder participar en el plebiscito de manera libre e informada y así contribuir a lograr la votación más masiva de la historia de Chile.

  A causa de la pandemia, el plebiscito originalmente planeado para abril fue postergado para octubre. ¿Ha habido conflictos o desacuerdos en relación con la postergación y la fijación de la nueva fecha?

  El escenario sanitario motivado por la pandemia obligó a las instituciones pertinentes a mover la fecha del plebiscito para octubre. El sector de sociedad civil con el cual nos relacionamos entendió que el cambio era necesario en función de un bien común superior, la salud de las personas. Por el momento damos por hecho que el plebiscito tendrá lugar en octubre, ya que las instituciones que podrían tomar la decisión de moverlo aún no lo han hecho, por lo que seguimos trabajando en función de esa fecha. Actualmente se están discutiendo temas relativos a la implementación del plebiscito, en primer lugar sobre los resguardos sanitarios, pero también sobre cómo promover la participación de la ciudadanía en esta instancia que sin duda tendrá características muy distintas a lo que estamos acostumbrados. Se han conformado mesas de trabajo intersectoriales para trabajar en el tema. Primero el Senado formó una mesa para recibir recomendaciones y analizar experiencias comparadas con otros países que han estado en nuestra misma situación. Luego el Servicio Electoral dio continuidad a esta mesa, para seguir trabajando en la línea de garantizar un plebiscito seguro y participativo. A esta mesa han sido invitadas distintas OSC, entre ellas Ahora Nos Toca Participar. Junto a estas organizaciones produjimos un documento de recomendaciones que abarca desde los temas sanitarios hasta la regulación de las campañas, pasando por temas de acceso a información y formación ciudadana, que son nuestros temas. Actualmente, esta mesa continúa en funcionamiento.

  ¿Se están tomando medidas para que la participación ciudadana en la campaña y la votación no se vea menoscabada por efecto de la pandemia?

  El actual escenario de pandemia naturalmente nos obliga a tomar resguardos. Por de pronto, el pasado 26 de agosto, se dio inicio al periodo de propaganda electoral, esto es, a la posibilidad de hacer propaganda en lugares públicos que estén expresamente autorizados por el Servicio Electoral, así como también en los medios de comunicación. El debate está teniendo lugar con mucha fuerza en las redes sociales, que dada la necesidad de tomar recaudos, evitar las aglomeraciones y el contacto físico y respetar las restricciones sanitarias decretadas por la autoridad, constituyen hoy el principal espacio de visibilización.

  Cómo hacer para garantizar a todas las personas el derecho a participar el día del plebiscito es algo que ha estado en discusión. Como consecuencia de la pandemia de COVID-19, algunos lugares de nuestro país permanecen en confinamiento, múltiples sectores se encuentran en cuarentena por casos activos y hay comunas que habían iniciado un plan de desconfinamiento pero tuvieron que retroceder ante el rebrote del virus.

  ¿Cómo garantizamos el derecho a la participación de las personas contagiadas de COVID-19? ¿De qué alternativas disponemos? Estas son preguntas que hoy debate tanto la opinión pública como las autoridades pertinentes que están en condiciones de dar una respuesta a esta demanda. 

  En esta línea, en conjunto con diversas OSC estamos impulsando una serie de recomendaciones que atienden no solamente el aspecto sanitario - para que pacientes con COVID-19 puedan sufragar – sino también cuestiones tales como la garantía del acceso a información oportuna y de formación ciudadana para todas aquellas personas que históricamente han sido excluidas de la participación por múltiples razones, entre ellas por no contar con canales de información adecuados para recibir los contenidos o porque éstos no se disponibilizaban en diferentes lenguas. En ese sentido, es importante que se hagan los mayores esfuerzos para garantizar el derecho a la participación, no solo a quienes en este momento podrían no estar en condiciones de ejercerlo por razones de salud, sino también a quienes se han encontrado históricamente en una situación más vulnerable, tales como los adultos mayores, los miembros de pueblos originarios, las poblaciones rurales, las mujeres, las personas LGBTQI+ y las personas migrantes.

  El espacio cívico en Chile es clasificado como “estrecho” por elCIVICUS Monitor.

  Contáctese con Ahora Nos Toca Participar a través de susitio web,Instagram o su perfil deFacebook, y siga a@ahrnostoca y a@marbrandd en Twitter.

• CHILE: ‘For the first time the extremes are inside the parliament and there are unacceptable undemocratic voices’

  CIVICUS speaks with Alberto Precht, executive director of Chile Transparente, about Chile’s presidential elections and their persistent pattern of low electoral turnout. Founded 23 years ago, Chile Transparente is a civil society organisation (CSO) that promotes transparency in public and private institutions and the fight against corruption.

  What have been the peculiarities of this electoral process?

  There have been three recent votes in Chile: first, the national plebiscite held in October 2020, in which citizens were asked whether they wanted a new constitution and, if so, which body should be in charge of drafting it; then the elections of representatives to the constitutional convention in May 2021; and now, with the constitutional convention in place, the presidential elections, with the first round held on 21 November and the second round scheduled for 19 December.

  These electoral processes have been quite peculiar because each of them has produced quite different results as measured on the left-right ideological axis. On the one hand, a progressive constitutional convention was elected, including a significant hardcore left-wing component. On the other, both in the primary elections and in the first round of the presidential election, a hardcore right-wing candidate, José Antonio Kast, won first place, followed by Gabriel Boric, a progressive candidate running in coalition with the Communist Party.

  The political environment is quite polarised, but what is most striking is that between 50 per cent and 60 per cent of Chileans do not show up to vote. This makes the election results very uncertain. Moreover, whoever wins will do so with 13 or 14 per cent of all eligible voters. It is not surprising that there are usually wide currents of anti-government opinion, since the government never represents a majority. 

  Why do so few people vote?

  It is paradoxical, because in the current context one would have expected a higher turnout. The 2021 election for the constitutional convention was the most important election since 1988, and turnout did not reach 50 per cent. The only vote that exceeded that threshold was the 2020 plebiscite, with a 51 per cent turnout, but that was different because it was a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote. This low turnout was striking, because although no one expected a 80 or 90 per cent turnout, as was the case in the historic 1988 plebiscite that said ‘no’ to the Pinochet dictatorship, turnout was expected to be closer to 60 per cent.

  It is very likely that we will see even lower participation in the second round, even though there are two very clear and distinct options, which would hopefully motivate more people to vote.

  In Chile there is a structural problem of low participation. In part, this has to do with the fact that voting is voluntary, but it also has to do with the fact that the political offer is not very attractive. Although the offer has changed a lot and the latest reform in the system used to elect parliamentarians has allowed for greater pluralism, this has not been enough to motivate people to vote. The latest elections have been a rollercoaster and therefore very hard to analyse; the only certainty we have is that at least 50 per cent of Chileans do not feel represented in the electoral system.

  How could people be motivated to vote?

  Some legal reforms are already being introduced to that effect. The national plebiscite that will take place in 2022, where people will say whether they agree with the new constitution, is going to be a mandatory vote. Additionally, the vote is going to be organised in a georeferenced way, so that people will be able to vote at a polling place within walking distance of their residence.

  This is not a minor detail: in Chile, voting places are not assigned according to place of residence, so people, especially low-income people, must take a lot of public transport to get to the polls. Even though it doesn’t cost them money, because it’s free, they have to invest the whole day in going to vote, which many can’t do. These changes will increase participation rates, but it will be very difficult for Chile to reach 80 per cent participation in the short term.

  The big questions that no one has been able to answer are who the people who don’t vote are and what they think. Between the constituent convention elections and the presidential election there seems to have been a turnover of voters. Younger voters showed up to vote in the constitutional convention elections, while older voters tended to participate more in the presidential election.

  What role does Chile Transparente play in the electoral process?

  Chile Transparente has a system of complaints and protection for victims and witnesses of corruption that has been receiving complaints of misuse of electoral funds. Today we are stuck with a very important controversy involving the candidate who came third in the first round of the presidential elections, Franco Parisi. He is a neo-populist candidate whose campaign has been funded in quite opaque ways.

  We also work to motivate participation and have participated in observations of local electoral processes that had to be repeated. We receive the support of the European Union for a programme called Transparent Convention, which publicises the functioning of the constitutional convention, highlighting certain issues that might seem relatively opaque and that need to be brought to the public’s attention.

  We are one of the few organisations in the country that are active in transparency and anti-corruption issues and we play a very important role alongside investigative journalists.

  How are these elections influenced by the protest movement?

  The election for the constitutional convention fed off the strength of the 2019 protests; in fact, at one point in the Constitutional Convention came to reflect the people who were protesting. But by the time of the presidential elections, held one year later, only the hangover from the protests remained, and the results were rather a reflection of the people who had suffered the effects and were against the protests.

  We need to understand that the mobilisation process has not been purely romantic, but has been accompanied by a lot of violence. Between the pandemic and the protest violence, there are people who have not been able to reopen their businesses, who cannot go to work in peace, who have lost everything. At the same time, we obviously have a debt in terms of human rights violations.

  These tensions were expressed at the polls, and we will surely have a heart-stopping second round, in which the competitors are a candidate who represents a hardcore right wing, quite different from the traditional right that has governed in recent years, and a candidate who has formed a coalition with the Communist Party, until now marginal in a political game that has rather gravitated towards the political centre.

  What has happened to the established Chilean party system?

  There is undoubtedly a weariness with the democracy of the last 30 years, regardless of all the progress the country has made. There are large sectors that believe the centrist consensus that characterised the transition to a so-called ‘democracy of agreements’, consisting of doing what was considered to be within the realm of the possible, does not provide solutions. This has led not only to a social outburst, but also to a conservative reaction. It is a textbook situation: every revolution is followed by a counter-revolution.

  On top of this there is a problem of migration management, which has caused a huge electoral shift throughout the country, especially in the north. Chile used to vote for the left and now it voted for two candidates – one from the extreme right and a populist candidate – who proposed harsher measures against migration, such as the construction of border ditches or mass expulsion: nothing could be further from a culture of human rights. 

  At the same time, the left has lacked any self-criticism. It has not understood how important it is to respond to people’s concerns about insecurity and to attend to the victims of violence. When there is an outbreak of violence, violence victims will vote for those who offer them order. As is well known, in Chile there has long been a major conflict with the Indigenous Mapuche people. There is also conflict with non-Mapuche sectors, often linked to organised crime, who have taken violent action. In those areas, where one would expect a vote for the left, the complete opposite has happened. In certain localities where violence has become endemic, the conservative candidate has received up to 60 or 70 per cent of votes. 

  What would be the implications for civil society depending on which candidate wins in the second round?

  A part of the more traditional press seeks to give the impression that if Boric wins, it will be the advent of communism, while another part claims that if Kast wins, he will take us back to the times of Pinochet. However, thanks to social media and new technologies, alternative media outlets have flourished in recent years. There are more pluralistic television channels and channels with quite diverse editorial lines, which have more nuanced views.

  I believe that both alternatives entail risks, because both candidates include within their coalitions people or parties that seek to limit the space for civil society, that adhere to a narrative that the press is financed by international powers, that Chile Transparente serves certain mega-powers, and promote conspiracy theories. Let’s remember that the Communist Party candidate who lost the primary elections against Boric proposed an intervention in the media. For his part, Kast has the support of hardcore Pinochetist elements.

  However, in the second round, the two candidates have moved towards the centre to capture the votes they need to win. The groups that followed former President Michelle Bachelet, who initially opposed Boric, are now working with him. On the other side of the spectrum, in order to attract segments of the liberal right, Kast also has had to moderate his discourse.

  Perhaps hope lies in parliament acting as a regulator of the two extremes. It is a diverse parliament where no party will have a majority, so whoever gets to govern will have to do so in negotiation with parliament. At the same time, the constituent process, which is still underway, can produce a constitution of unity that would set the conditions for the new president to govern.

  The problem is that for the first time the extremes are inside parliament and there are some voices that are unacceptable from a democratic point of view. For example, two deputies elected by the extreme right recently mocked an elected candidate who is transgender. Some not very encouraging positions on human rights have also been expressed by the left. For example, the Chilean Communist Party has just recognised Daniel Ortega as the legitimate president of Nicaragua and continues to recognise Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela.

  Civic space in Chile is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Chile Transparente through itswebsite or itsFacebook andInstagram profiles, and follow@Ch_Transparente and@albertoprechtr on Twitter.

   

• CHILE: ‘Hay un rechazo estructural hacia la forma de gobernar de todas las décadas anteriores’

  En octubre de 2019 estallaron en Chile protestas protagonizadas por estudiantes, inicialmente en rechazo de un aumento en el precio del transporte, que rápidamente escalaron hasta convertirse en multitudinarias manifestaciones en reclamo de cambios estructurales, y fueron ferozmente reprimidas por las fuerzas de seguridad. CIVICUS conversa sobre las protestas con Nicole Romo, directora del área de Políticas Públicas de la Comunidad de Organizaciones Solidarias, una red de más de 200 organizaciones de la sociedad civil de Chile que trabajan para combatir la pobreza y la exclusión. En conjunto, las organizaciones miembros trabajan con más de 900.000 usuarios y cuentan con unos 11.000 trabajadores y más de 17.000 voluntarios.

  ¿Por qué estalló la movilización en Chile, y qué hizo que las protestas escalaran como lo hicieron?

  El estallido social en Chile se produjo luego de décadas en que se fue profundizando un modelo de desarrollo que se concentró en generar riquezas, las cuales fueron distribuidas por años sin equidad y justicia. Se profundizaron políticas sociales individuales, cortoplacistas y asistencialistas que dañaron profundamente la cohesión social y el sentido comunitario y colectivo del bienestar, políticas de vivienda que segregaron a los chilenos en territorios “de ricos” y territorios “para pobres” donde el acceso a bienes y servicios también quedó distribuido de la misma manera, un sistema de pensiones que tiene como consecuencia un grave empobrecimiento en la vejez, falta de acceso a la salud de manera oportuna y con adecuados estándares de calidad, y un sistema de educación que también segrega y otorga oportunidades diametralmente distintas a ricos y pobres.

  En este contexto, la frase “no son treinta pesos, son treinta años”, que se escuchó mucho en las protestas, explica muy bien el sentir de la ciudadanía, puesto que si bien este movimiento social comenzó con la evasión masiva del pago del transporte público por parte de los estudiantes (tras un alza de 30 pesos chilenos) el verdadero malestar se ha acumulado por más de 30 años, y a pesar de reiteradas manifestaciones por diversas demandas sociales, nunca había sido escuchado y ni siquiera visibilizado. El estallido social del 18 de octubre de 2019 es la acumulación de un rechazo estructural hacia el gobierno y la forma de gobernar de todas las décadas anteriores.

  ¿Qué actitud han tomado la ciudadanía y las organizaciones de la sociedad civil en relación con la protesta?

  La movilización nacional que estamos viviendo ha dejado en evidencia de manera nítida que tenemos dos Chiles habitando en un mismo territorio, dos Chiles que no se conocen y no se encuentran. Esta división expresa brutalmente la diferencia en la calidad de vida entre quienes tienen privilegios y quienes no los tienen. Nuestro país se pasó las últimas décadas convenciéndose de que los logros están basados en el mérito individual, que solo el esfuerzo de cada cual es garantía de movilidad social, cuando en realidad y en base a diversos estudios eso no es cierto en absoluto.

  Frente a esto, los datos de distintas encuestas muestran una alta aprobación de la ciudadanía hacia las demandas sociales. Sin embargo, lo que genera una mayor división son los actos de violencia, y especialmente aquellos que han afectado infraestructura pública y privada, como saqueos, la destrucción de comercios y la quema de locales comerciales y otros tipos de servicios, así como la violencia de los agentes del Estado que han cometido reiteradas violaciones de derechos humanos.

  ¿Cómo ha reaccionado el gobierno ante las protestas?

  El gobierno ha tenido un cuestionable manejo de este conflicto, con el foco puesto principalmente en la agenda de seguridad, criminalizando la protesta, con una agenda legislativa centrada en la sanción de la protesta, lo cual revela que no se ha comprendido la naturaleza de la movilización nacional, como tampoco sus demandas y urgencias.

  La agenda social propuesta por el gobierno es débil. No apunta a generar cambios radicales en la estructura existente, que profundiza la inequidad y no garantiza los derechos de todas las personas. Los avances y contenidos de la agenda social liderada por el gobierno no están a la altura de las demandas y de la urgencia de ‘estas. Sus numerosas iniciativas y medidas suponen mejoras acotadas, necesarias pero que no tocan la estructura que genera las inequidades en nuestro país; por lo tanto, no hacen sino duplicar la misma política pública cortoplacista que no está basada en un enfoque de derechos y se centra en el individuo más que en las necesidades de miles de familias que viven en situación de vulnerabilidad.

  Los últimos informes hablan de decenas de muertos y centenares de heridos. ¿Podrías describir el alcance de la represión y de las violaciones de derechos humanos ocurridas durante las protestas?

  Desde que comenzó el estallido social en Chile se han registrado numerosas violaciones de los derechos humanos por parte de agentes de seguridad del Estado. Estas violaciones han sido denunciadas por organismos nacionales e internacionales, pero el Estado ha tendido a relativizarlas.

  Para nosotros es fundamental reiterar que en todo momento debe haber un respeto irrestricto de los derechos humanos, y que cada caso de violación debe ser investigado y debe haber sanciones y reparación para cada una de las víctimas. La sociedad civil es clave en el seguimiento y la vigilancia de estos procesos, para garantizar que sean transparentes y resulten en la asunción de responsabilidad por parte del Estado.

  Los datos del Instituto Nacional de Derechos Humanos indican que en el 48% de los casos observados de detenciones, las personas detenidas se estaban manifestando pacíficamente (más allá de que estuvieran o no ocupando la calzada). Asimismo, se utilizaron gases en forma indiscriminada en el 56% de los casos observados, y en el 60% de los casos observados se apreció falta de gradualidad en el uso de fuerza, que sobrevino sin previo aviso y en ausencia de diálogo. Se registraron en los hospitales 2.727 casos de personas adultas heridas, así como 211 casos de niños, niñas y adolescentes, y 241 personas resultaron con lesiones oculares. También se constató una serie de violaciones de derechos humanos contra las personas detenidas y retenidas en comisarías. La más frecuente de estas fue el uso excesivo de la fuerza durante la detención, con 751 casos. En total, se registraron 190 casos de acoso o violencia sexual, 171 de ellos correspondientes a desnudamientos.

  ¿Cómo han respondido la ciudadanía y las organizaciones de la sociedad civil ante la represión estatal y las violaciones de derechos ocurridas durante las protestas?

  Hemos respondido sin miedo. Ciudades completas han gritado sin miedo en protesta por las violaciones a los derechos humanos ocurridas durante estos meses. Muchísimas personas han levantado material testimonial para visibilizar el nivel de exposición y violencia en que se encontraron durante las protestas.

  Desde la sociedad civil la respuesta ha sido variada, pero en general todas las organizaciones han llamado a la no violencia, a la generación de nuevos espacios de diálogo y de encuentro conducentes al fortalecimiento de una sociedad con mayor justicia social y equidad. Sin lugar a dudas, la sociedad civil tomó un lugar preponderante, incitando a estos espacios de encuentro y ayudando a relevar las demandas ciudadanas. Lo hizo a través de la creación de una gran red de redes llamada Nuevo Pacto Social, que reúne a más de 600 organizaciones de la sociedad civil que han trabajado incansablemente por la búsqueda de soluciones reales a las demandas de fondo.

  Desde la Comunidad de Organizaciones solidarias sostenemos el principio de no violencia y desde el primer día del estallido social manifestamos la necesidad de respeto irrestricto hacia los derechos humanos. Si bien nuestro ámbito de acción es otro, creemos que este estallido visibilizó la urgencia de reestructurar las fuerzas policiales. Creemos fielmente en los datos entregados desde el Institución Nacional de Derechos Humanos, y sabemos que su trabajo es consciente y riguroso, al igual que el informe entregado por Amnistía Internacional, por lo que, como organizaciones de la sociedad civil, apoyaremos desde nuestro ámbito de acción todas las acciones tendientes a la reparación de los derechos vulnerados durante el estallido social.

  ¿Qué medidas inmediatas debería tomar el gobierno de Chile para superar esta crisis? ¿Qué chances hay de que ello ocurra y se alcance una solución duradera?

  Una salida duradera requeriría de un proceso largo de construcción y cambios, con medidas de corto, mediano y largo plazo.

  Las medidas de corto plazo y mediano plazo tienen relación con la agenda social, que tiene tres dimensiones. La primera es la mejora de la calidad de vida a través de medidas en temas tales como salud, educación y pensiones. La segunda dimensión abarca medidas para terminar con los abusos de las élites económicas y políticas y cerrar las brechas de aplicación de justicia ante delitos cometidos por integrantes de la élite económica y ciudadanos comunes, quienes enfrentan sanciones completamente distintas: “clases de ética” para los primeros y cárcel efectiva para los segundos. La tercera dimensión refiere a la recaudación de los recursos que el Estado necesita para llevar adelante una agenda social profunda y contundente. Chile requiere una reforma tributaria que permita aumentar la recaudación y de un sistema con mayor eficiencia en la gestión.

  El eje de largo plazo pasa por el proceso constituyente, cuyos principales hitos ya están establecidos: plebiscito de entrada, elección de representantes, plebiscito de cierre. Sin embargo, aún no se han logrado condiciones que garanticen una participación transversal y representativa, paridad de género, cuotas para minorías y candidaturas independientes. Sin estas condiciones, la legitimidad del proceso constituyente se verá severamente debilitada.

  El espacio cívico en Chile es clasificado como ‘estrecho’ por elCIVICUS Monitor.

  Contáctese con la Comunidad de Organizaciones Solidarias a través de supágina web o su perfil deFacebook, o siga a@ComunidadOrgSol y as@nromo_flores en Twitter.

• CHILE: ‘Los grupos anti-derechos se fortalecen cuando su discurso es expresado desde el gobierno’

  En el marco de nuestroinforme temático 2019, estamos entrevistando a activistas, líderes y expertos de la sociedad civil acerca de sus experiencias y acciones ante el avance de los grupos anti-derechos y sus estrategias para fortalecer las narrativas progresistas y la capacidad de respuesta de la sociedad civil. En esta oportunidad, CIVICUS conversa con Héctor Pujols, vocero de la Coordinadora Nacional de Inmigrantes de Chile. La Coordinadora es una red quereúne a activistas y organizaciones que trabajan por la defensa de los derechos humanos de la población migrante en Chile, y busca incidir para lograr la aprobación de legislación y la implementación de políticas públicas inclusivas de las comunidades migrantes.

   ¿Podrías contarnos qué trabajo hace la Coordinadora Nacional de Inmigrantes?

  La Coordinadora es una articulación de organizaciones, un colectivo o movimiento de personas migrantes; nuestra perspectiva es que las personas migrantes necesitan de una organización que les sea propia. La Coordinadora existe desde 2014, pero muchas organizaciones que la integran, sobre todo las vinculadas a la migración peruana, llevan trabajando entre 20 y 25 años. Nuestra membresía es diversa e incluye a organizaciones de tipo cultural; temáticas, dedicadas por ejemplo a temas laborales o de vivienda; sectoriales, como por ejemplo la Secretaria de Mujeres Inmigrantes; de carácter territorial, vinculadas a determinadas comunas; y organizadas por nacionalidad, para proporcionar espacios y oportunidades a las colectividades argentina, ecuatoriana o peruana.

  En tanto que Coordinadora, una de nuestras tareas principales, aunque no la única, es la incidencia política a nivel nacional para mejorar la inclusión de la población migrante. Es un trabajo que hacemos que hacemos autoorganizándonos, en tanto que migrantes, y articulándonos con otras organizaciones, como sindicatos y otras clases de organizaciones de la sociedad civil.

  El Senado chileno discute actualmente un proyecto de Ley de Extranjería, ¿qué opina la Coordinadora al respecto?

  Históricamente, al menos en la época contemporánea, Chile no ha tenido una migración de dimensiones comparables a las de otros países de América Latina. El fenómeno aumentó en los años ’90, con flujos de migración boliviana y peruana, pero en los últimos diez años se empezó a hacer más significativo, con el aumento de la cantidad de inmigrantes de otros países de la región, principalmente Colombia, Haití, República Dominicana y más recientemente Venezuela.

  En este contexto, hace por lo menos cinco o seis años se empezó a plantear la necesidad de actualizar la Ley de Extranjería de 1975, surgida de un contexto dictatorial y con una visión centrada en la seguridad nacional, que ve al migrante como un agente extranjero, un agitador ideológico, alguien que viene a hacer la revolución. En el contexto de la dictadura, la ley fue hecha pensando en el migrante de la época de la Unidad Popular, el gobierno de izquierda que la precedió - argentinos, cubanos y uruguayos que llegaban en apoyo de ese gobierno de izquierda o que venían a refugiarse de otros gobiernos que los perseguían.

  El nuevo contexto migratorio es bien diferente, por lo que ha habido un gran consenso respecto de que la ley de 1975 no se ajusta a la realidad actual. La Coordinadora y otras organizaciones llevamos años reclamando un nuevo marco legal que permita la inclusión de la población migrante.

  Sin embargo, el debate ha sido complejo y en el último año, tras la asunción de Sebastián Piñera en la presidencia, el gobierno presentó un proyecto de ley muy similar al que ya había presentado en 2013: un proyecto que se desplaza de la visión del extranjero como un agitador externo hacia la visión del extranjero como un aporte económico, cuyo valor depende de cuánto dinero trae en el bolsillo. Ha sido un debate complejo en el que Chile trató de situarse en el mundo adoptando un sistema de visas similar al de países como Australia o Canadá, sin entender que el contexto migratorio y las características de la migración en Chile no son las mismas que las de esos países. Este proyecto ya tiene la media sanción de la Cámara de Diputados y ahora está en el Senado.

  Nosotros planteamos que, si se aprueba, esta ley generaría una gran irregularidad migratoria, que ya es un problema en Chile. La ley incentivaría a las personas a llegar como turistas para quedarse luego de su expiración, sin perspectivas de regularizar su situación aún en caso de conseguir trabajo. La irregularidad migratoria afecta el acceso a todos los derechos, a la salud, la educación e incluso a un trabajo decente. Una persona que no puede firmar un contrato de trabajo va a trabajar de todos modos porque de algo tiene que vivir, pero va a hacerlo en condiciones mucho más precarias. En suma, el proyecto de ley adopta en la superficie el discurso de la sociedad civil sobre la necesidad de renovar el marco legal, pero fundamentalmente es una iniciativa anti-derechos.

  En los últimos tiempos se observa un ejercicio más intenso de las libertades cívicas por parte de las personas migrantes. ¿Cómo se ven los inmigrantes en relación con la ciudadanía?

  Pienso que el ejercicio de los derechos de organizarnos, movilizarnos y reclamar por nuestros derechos no se plantea en términos de ciudadanía porque la propia Constitución de Chile equipara la ciudadanía con la nacionalidad, de modo que los extranjeros no pueden ser ciudadanos. Sin embargo, la Constitución también establece que tras cinco años de permanencia los extranjeros podemos votar. E independientemente del tiempo de residencia o de los derechos que nos asignen la Constitución y las leyes, ejercemos en la práctica otros derechos relacionados con la ciudadanía, al organizarnos, movilizarnos y hacer incidencia política, pese a que está prohibido por la Ley de Extranjería.

  La Ley de Extranjería establece como motivo de expulsión el atentar contra los intereses del Estado o inmiscuirse en situaciones políticas del Estado. Su interpretación y aplicación son muy arbitrarias; siempre redunda en la expulsión de personas progresistas o que tienen una visión crítica, y no en la de personas que hacen política de extrema derecha. Hace no mucho, en 2017, a unos jóvenes peruanos los expulsaron por tener libros sobre marxismo. La Coordinadora planteó un recurso de amparo y lo ganamos, pero la ejecución ya se había hecho y ellos ya estaban expulsados del país.

  Este no fue un caso aislado, ha habido muchos otros. Un periodista italiano fue expulsado porque ser el comunicador de visual de un proceso de movilización de un sindicato muy importante. Expulsaron también a un compañero vasco porque estaba en las comunidades indígenas Mapuche; alegaron que tenía vínculos con la organización terrorista vasca ETA y aunque se demostró que era falso lo expulsaron igual. Todo esto ocurrió durante el gobierno de la ex presidenta Michelle Bachelet, o sea que es independiente de la orientación del gobierno de turno.

  Estaban ustedes en medio de la discusión del proyecto de ley cuando comenzaron los llamados a la movilización anti-migrante. ¿Quiénes son estos grupos que llamaron a la movilización?

  Estos grupos no son nuevos. Ya habían hecho otro llamado antes pero no habían tenido el eco que tuvieron esta vez. Son grupos que están vinculados a una extrema derecha histórica, esa derecha que no muere en ningún país; aunque quizás por momentos decaiga su presencia siempre queda latente esperando una oportunidad para salir de nuevo. Son grupos que defienden a la dictadura, pero saben que si salen a la calle a decir ‘viva Pinochet’ mucha gente los va a rechazar. Pero encuentran diferentes temas que les permiten instalar su discurso. Por ejemplo, se montan en el rechazo a la supuesta ideología de género y se suman a las marchas contra el aborto, y ahora también con el tema de la inmigración.

  Los grupos de extrema derecha se caracterizan por su discurso extremadamente simple y excluyente: el otro, el diferente, el que llega de afuera, el extraño que no es chileno es el enemigo, porque es la causa de todos los males del país. Estos grupos vienen de diversos sitios, pero encuentran amparo en un discurso institucional del gobierno actual, que culpa de todo a la inmigración. El presidente Piñera dijo hace unas semanas que el aumento del desempleo en Chile es producto de la llegada de población migrante, aunque el Ministro de Trabajo lo desmintió. El ex Ministro de Salud dijo que el aumento del VIH/SIDA en Chile era culpa de la población migrante. Estos discursos institucionales, basados en falsedades, se van instalando y son aprovechados por los grupos de extrema derecha.

  ¿Qué es lo que explica que esta vez hayan tenido mayor eco que en el pasado?

  Estos grupos se fortalecen cuando su discurso es expresado desde el gobierno. Los planteos de la extrema derecha son los mismos que ha hecho el gobierno: por ejemplo, negar la atención sanitaria a personas con menos de dos años de residencia, eliminar el acceso a la educación. El gobierno dice ‘vamos a quitarles derechos a los inmigrantes’ y sobre esa base estos grupos dan un paso más y dicen ‘vamos a echar a los inmigrantes’. El diagnóstico es en ambos casos el mismo: estamos invadidos, vienen a quitarnos el trabajo, vienen a quitarnos las ayudas, primero Chile.

  En este caso, además, las redes sociales jugaron un rol de amplificación. Estos grupos han aprendido a utilizar las redes sociales, aprendieron mucho de la experiencia de Brasil, algunos de hecho habían viajado para apoyar al entonces candidato Bolsonaro. El uso hábil de Facebook, Instagram y Twitter les permite llegar a una audiencia interesante - el chileno que pasa por una situación difícil – al que le ofrecen una explicación y una solución sencillas: usted no encuentra trabajo, la culpa es de los inmigrantes, la solución es echarlos.

  Te refieres a un fenómeno curioso: grupos de extrema derecha ultra-nacionalistas que sin embargo se internacionalizan, se organizan en red, colaboran y aprenden de sus pares de otros países…

  Sí, hay un proceso internacional donde la extrema derecha chilena aprende de lo que hace la extrema derecha argentina y ésta aprende de la de Brasil y así sucesivamente. Los discursos que hemos escuchado en Chile son un calco de los de la extrema derecha España, con el fenómeno de Vox, el partido de extrema derecha que apareció hace prácticamente un año. Son una copia exacta pese a que la realidad chilena es muy diferente. En España fue muy intenso el discurso de que los migrantes se llevan todas las ayudas sociales, y en Chile se ensayó el mismo discurso, ya que es una táctica internacional, pero lógicamente tuvo menos repercusión porque las ayudas sociales en Chile son muy precarias. O sea que no siempre les funciona, es prueba y error. Pero se trata de una red que se está fortaleciendo internacionalmente y eso es muy preocupante.

  Estos grupos convocaron a una marcha contra los inmigrantes para el 12 de agosto de 2019, pero la marcha finalmente no ocurrió. ¿Podrías explicar lo que pasó?

  La convocatoria a la marcha se difundió por las redes sociales, y una persona influencer de la extrema derecha, miembro de los grupos convocantes, llamó los manifestantes a portar armas para defenderse de los colectivos anti-fascistas que habían convocado a una contramarcha.

  En Chile es necesario pedir autorización para movilizarse en las calles, y en la capital, Santiago, la encargada de dar la autorización es la Intendencia. Después de varias idas y vueltas, ante la presión de las organizaciones sociales y del Colegio de Abogados, que también solicitó que se denegara el permiso, la Intendencia no autorizó la marcha. Hubo algunos incidentes aislados provocados por una veintena de personas que igual asistieron, pero no pasó de allí.

  La Coordinación convocó a otro evento para ese mismo día, entendiendo que era complejo para nosotros adherir a la contramarcha que hacían los colectivos antifascistas, dada la limitación de los derechos de participación política de los migrantes. Convocamos a un acto ese mismo domingo a la mañana en el Museo de la Memoria, que es un espacio dedicado a las víctimas de la dictadura. El eje de nuestra convocatoria fue el rechazo del discurso de odio, que hoy es contra los inmigrantes pero en otros momentos fue contra las mujeres o contra los que pensaban diferente, y que lleva a las prácticas que vivimos en dictadura. Cuando deshumanizas a una persona puedes torturarla, tirarla al mar o hacerla desaparecer. Ese fue la respuesta que dimos nosotros. Vinieron unas 150 personas, que no es tanto pero debería dar señal de que también somos parte de este país y que tenemos memoria.

  ¿Qué estrategia tendría que adoptar la sociedad civil defensora de los derechos humanos de las personas migrantes frente a los grupos anti-derechos?

  Estos grupos están para quedarse, ya tienen convocada una nueva movilización para el 7 de septiembre de 2019. El discurso instalado es el de la invasión migrante, de modo que la nuestra es una disputa por el sentido común, una lucha de largo plazo. Trabajamos en una alianza estratégica con los movimientos progresistas y democráticos, pero estos tienen que dejar de lado su mirada paternalista hacia la población migrante. Nosotros no queremos ser tratados como desvalidos necesitados de ayuda; por eso somos una organización de personas migrantes, no una organización que defiende los derechos de las personas migrantes. No queremos ayudas paternalistas, queremos los mismos derechos.

   El espacio cívico en Chile es clasificado como ‘estrecho’ por elCIVICUS Monitor.

  Contáctese con la Coordinadora Nacional de Inmigrantes a través de supágina web, acceda alblog de Héctor Pujols o siga a@HectorPumo y a@MigrantesChile en Twitter.

• CHILE: ‘Migration restrictions do not tackle the causes of migration’

  CIVICUS speaks with Delio Cubides, migration legal advisor at the Chilean Catholic Migration Institute (INCAMI), about the situation of migrants in Chile, and the restrictive measures and mass expulsions that took place this year. Founded in 1955, INCAMI is a civil society organisation dedicated to supporting migrants in Chile, including through providing reception services, social assistance, advice on document regularisation, training and support in finding employment.

  How did Chile get into its current situation of anti-migrant protests and mass expulsions?

  To answer this question, we should place ourselves in the international context, to which Chile is no stranger. Since 2010, there has been an increase in the number of migrants from non-border countries, such as Venezuela and Haiti, which has surpassed the inflow from border countries.

  To a certain extent, Chile has been viewed in the region as a country with security and institutional and economic stability, while since 2013 the political, social and economic situation in Venezuela has led to an exponential increase in the inflow of people from that country, with a peak in 2013 and another in 2018, despite the fact that, unlike Haitian migration, there is no family reunification visa for Venezuelans in Chile.

  Faced with this increase in migration, the current administration of Sebastián Piñera began to adopt restrictive measures; 30 days after taking office in 2018, it enacted a policy aimed at limiting the entry of Haitians and Venezuelans. Haitian migration was heavily restricted by the implementation of a simple consular tourist visa for entry into Chile and, like other migrants, also by the elimination of the work contract visa.

  Although we do not have exact figures, we know that the rejection rate for consular visas requested by Haitians has been high; testimonies from Haitian migrants that we deal with in our offices report numerous rejections for reasons beyond their control or due to requirements they are unable to comply with.

  For example, in order to grant a permanent stay permit to migrants already present in Chile, the government requires a criminal record certificate that must be obtained from the consulate of the country of origin. In the case of countries such as Haiti, the high cost and lengthy processing time in the country of origin is compounded by the fact that, in the current political, social and health context, the certificate is almost impossible to obtain. As a result, many people are unable to submit it within the established deadlines. This requirement is currently limiting access by hundreds of people of Haitian origin to the so-called ‘extraordinary regularisation process’.

  For migrants from Venezuela, a consular visa requirement known as a ‘democratic accountability visa’ was imposed in 2019. But the desperate situation in Venezuela continued to push people to migrate despite the obstacles, as migration restrictions do not address the causes of migration.

  What these measures did not achieve, the restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic did: in November 2020 the government suspended around 90,000 visa procedures for Venezuelan applicants, and many others who had already been granted their visas or had their final interview scheduled could not enter Chile because the suspension of international flights prevented them from doing so within the 90-day period established by law; therefore, their applications were administratively closed without any consideration for the pandemic situation.

  Many people have filed amparo appeals – writs for protection of constitutional rights – and have managed to have their cases reopened, but Chile has clearly opted for a strategy of restriction. All these measures were taken to regulate and control a migratory flow that was growing, but many of us see it as a reflection of the lack of empathy for the humanitarian reality that these people are going through in their countries of origin. Many of them had requested protection or were in the process of reuniting with their families, and their projects were cut short either by the pandemic or by administrative restrictions.

  Is Chilean society polarised around the issue of migration?

  I don’t see such polarisation. The situation in the city of Iquique, where in September 2021 there was a march against the arrival of migrants, was an isolated event. It was also the result of the stress that can build up in a situation of coexistence in undignified conditions, a result of the lack of public policies capable of anticipating the drama of this humanitarian crisis.

  On social media, opinions are polarised and people say many things, but these positions have not materialised in marches on the capital, Santiago de Chile, or in other cities. On the contrary, in Iquique we have seen migrants on the streets in extremely difficult conditions, and city residents welcoming and helping them to the best of their ability.

  The situation in Iquique was also one of exclusion from the possibility of regularisation of people who entered through unauthorised passages, a direct result of Law No. 21.325 on Migration and Aliens passed in April this year. In the previous regularisation process in 2018, migrants who entered through unauthorised passages were allowed to register, although no work permits were granted. Migrants know this is the case, but they prefer this precarious situation to going hungry in their countries of origin.

  In the context of the pandemic, because of health restrictions, many migrants were forced to stay in public places, unable to go anywhere else, undocumented and excluded from social benefits. This created difficulties for local residents, as well as for the migrants themselves who lacked state assistance.

  It was only after some Venezuelan migrants died while crossing the border that the Chilean state began to provide assistance, on the understanding that they were in fact refugees or asylum seekers.

  What should the state do in this situation?

  The state has an obligation to provide a solution to this situation. An alternative could be for it to coordinate with the private sector, which is in need of workers, especially in construction, agriculture, services and in some professional categories. The situation of people fitting these profiles could be regularised through coordination with the private sector, providing them with training and job placement. This would provide a different perspective on migration and would help avoid situations of dependency and lack of autonomy.

  It seems that restrictions are not the best solution. Restrictions do not stop migration, and instead deepen the violations of migrants’ rights, as they make them susceptible to the challenges of the labour market and the housing rental market and limit their access to basic rights such as health and education. They are also of no use to the authorities, who do not know where migrants are, who they are, how many they are or how they have arrived.

  Over the entire recent period since Chile returned to democracy, none of a series of governments developed a real migration policy that reformed and updated existing regulations. The current government has been the only one to propose a change in the law on migration and in migration management, but, due to the context and the pressure of migratory flows, it has turned out to be a restrictive policy, or at least one that seeks to limit the flow. It is a policy that discourages people from entering the country, driving those in a regular situation to exhaustion due to eternal waits to obtain documents, lack of communication by migration authorities and bureaucratic centralisation in Santiago.

  We are now in the middle of an election campaign, and in such times migration can be exploited to win votes. The government programmes of all the candidates have very limited information on this issue, but all who have spoken about it have done so in a restrictive tone. I think the problem lies there, more than in the fact that there is xenophobia within society. It seems that migrants only begin to be heard when they become an electoral force, which in Chile is just beginning to happen.

  How adequate is the new law to achieving ‘safe, orderly and regular’ migration?

  Law 21.325 reflects well the position of this administration on the issue of migration. It should be remembered that in December 2018 Chile refused to sign the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, arguing that each country should retain its sovereignty to set its migration rules, even though Chile had been one of the countries that had led its drafting process.

  The new law has some positive aspects and enshrines some rights, such as the rights to health, education, family reunification and work. It includes visas for minors and gives consideration to people with disabilities and women, giving them protection in certain specific cases such as pregnancy, smuggling and trafficking and gender-based violence. It decentralises the revalidation of diplomas and increases the administration’s presence in Chile’s regions. It also gives people with dependent visas autonomy to develop an economic activity.

  Although these rights are not currently refused, they are not guaranteed by law either, but rather recognised administratively, which makes them somewhat fragile.

  At the same time, the new law represents a shift in migration management. Until now, the law allowed for changes of status within the national territory, but the new law will not allow this: all visas must be obtained from consulates in the migrants’ countries of origin. This will give the administration the ultimate decision on how many migrants to allow in, which and under what conditions. This is perhaps the biggest change introduced by the new law. Only in some cases will certain people be allowed to change their migration status, but this will depend on the content of the regulatory degree that is issued to implement the new law.

  What work is the Chilean Catholic Migration Institute doing in this context?

  As it is beyond our reach to tackle the causes of migration, we defend the rights of migrants. Our objectives are to welcome, protect and integrate them. 

  We advocate with the authorities, which sometimes comes at a cost. This is necessary work because although there are migrants’ organisations, they tend to be organised around one person, a leader, and are not highly institutionalised. There are organisations for Colombians, Ecuadorians, Haitians and Venezuelans, among others. There is also Chile’s National Immigrants’ Coordination, which brings together several organisations, has a presence in protests and social media, and includes several Haitian, Peruvian and Venezuelan collectives.

  We also provide legal advice, which is what is most lacking in Chile, due to a lack of access to information, which is not promoted by the authorities who should be attending to migrants. We help with online forms and procedures and provide social assistance, particularly in the form of shelter, as there are no state-run shelters for migrants.

  Everything that exists in Chile in the area of migrants’ reception and services is the result of civil society initiatives, largely by organisations, institutions and services of the Catholic Church. INCAMI is the Catholic Church’s main body on migration issues: through the work teams of the Pastoral of Human Mobility (PMH) in each of Chile’s regions, we coordinate the reception and care of migrants with other Church bodies. Our resources are limited, but during the pandemic we have opened churches to receive women and children and we have provided all the attention we could through social media.

  We listen to what people need, something the authorities don’t do. With the help of some municipalities, we accompanied the return of thousands of people not only from neighbouring Bolivia, but also from Colombia, Ecuador, Haiti, Venezuela and other countries.

  Our migration teams travel not only within the Metropolitan Region of Santiago but also to Chile’s regions, to visit the municipalities with the greatest presence of migrants and offer them the possibility of regularising their status, obtaining a visa, working under fair conditions, contributing to the social security system and accessing their fundamental rights. Sometimes we do this with the support of PMH teams in the regions, government authorities or the International Organisation for Migration (IOM).

  What support do organisations defending the rights of migrants in Chile need from the international community?

  We face a regional challenge that requires a regional response. States should coordinate an international approach to migration, as is already being done by the Regional Inter-Agency Coordination Platform for Refugees and Migrants from Venezuela (R4V), led by the United Nations Refugee Agency and the IOM. Further progress is needed in this process, as the Venezuelan situation is far from over.

  In order to assist migrants while doing very necessary advocacy work, we need resources: staple foods to assemble basic food baskets and economic resources to pay for accommodation, among other things. It is important to remember that migrants are not the problem, but rather the symptom of realities undergoing deeper transformation, and most of them require protection.

  Civic space in Chile is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with the Chilean Catholic Migration Institute through itswebsite or itsFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@INCAMIchile and@JosDelioCubides on Twitter. 

• CHILE: ‘Se ha producido un despertar ciudadano de dimensiones históricas’

  En octubre de 2019 estallaron en Chile protestas protagonizadas por estudiantes, inicialmente en rechazo de un aumento en el precio del transporte, que rápidamente escalaron hasta convertirse en multitudinarias manifestaciones en reclamo de cambios estructurales, y fueron ferozmente reprimidas por las fuerzas de seguridad. CIVICUS conversa sobre las protestas con Soledad Fátima Muñoz, activista chilena y fundadora del programa de mentoría y festival feministaCurrent Symposium.  (Foto de Kati Jenson)

  ¿Cómo fue que lo que empezó con un pequeño aumento en el precio del boleto del metro se convirtió en una movilización de dimensiones sin precedentes?

  Lo primero que hay que aclarar es que esto no se debe tan solo a un aumento del precio del boleto del metro, ni tampoco es una protesta aislada. Las movilizaciones en contra de los abusos derivados del sistema neoliberal han sido constantes en Chile durante años. Entre ellas se destacaron las protestas masivas contra el sistema de pensiones privatizadas, contra el Acuerdo Transpacífico de Cooperación Económica y contra la Ley de Pesca, las protestas feministas y del movimiento impulsado bajo la consigna “Ni Una Menos”, las movilizaciones por la deuda histórica con los profesores, las protestas estudiantiles en 2006 y 2011, y las recientes movilizaciones de alumnos en contra de la llamada Ley de Aula Segura. A esto se le suma la indignación por la represión estatal sistemática de los pueblos originarios en Wallmapu, las muertes de Camilo Catrillanca y Macarena Valdés, y el encarcelamiento de la Machi Francisca Linconao y el Lonko Alberto Curamil, entre otros presos políticos. En combinación con el descontento generacional ante la impunidad de los culpables de las torturas, desapariciones y homicidios de miles de personas durante la dictadura de Augusto Pinochet, esto produjo un ambiente propicio para un despertar ciudadano de dimensiones históricas. Tras años de abusos, el pueblo chileno despertó y quiere una nueva constitución, ya que la actual fue creada durante la dictadura y está diseñada para promover la desigualdad social.

  La gran diferencia entre la protesta actual y todas las anteriores pasa por las acciones del gobierno de Sebastián Piñera, que declaró el estado de emergencia y el toque de queda, y con ello desató una represión de Carabineros y militares contra el pueblo chileno que solo es comparable con los crímenes perpetrados durante la dictadura.

  Las protestas no tienen un único ente organizador ni una consigna política específica, sino que hay muchas iniciativas independientes que hacen llamados a reunirse y manifestar, a través de las redes sociales o por distintos canales de información independiente. Algunas de las demandas generalizadas reclaman el llamado a una Asamblea Constituyente que redacte una nueva Constitución. También se reclama una estatización de los servicios básicos y la nacionalización de los recursos naturales, entre ellos el cobre, el litio y el agua. Hay también demandas de democracia directa y plebiscitos vinculantes, penalización de la corrupción político-empresarial, reivindicación de los pueblos originarios y respeto de la soberanía plurinacional del territorio, y salud, educación y pensiones dignas. A ello se suman algunas demandas más específicas, tales como el aumento del salario mínimo a $500.000 (unos 650 dólares estadounidenses), la reducción de los sueldos de los legisladores y el alza de los impuestos a los más ricos.

  Estos fueron los reclamos por los cuales empezó el movimiento, pero ante la represión desmedida del Estado, la ciudadanía hoy pide también la renuncia y el enjuiciamiento de Sebastián Piñera y de las personas involucradas en las violaciones sistemáticas de los derechos humanos ocurridas en el pasado mes.

  Se ha reportado una veintena de muertos durante la represión de las movilizaciones, además de gran cantidad de personas heridas y bajo arresto. ¿Podrías describir las violaciones de derechos cometidas contra los manifestantes?

  Es difícil dimensionar en este minuto las violaciones de derechos humanos que está cometiendo el gobierno de Sebastián Piñera, ya que – al igual que ocurría en la dictadura - hay miles de detenidos incomunicados. Es por eso que cuando se las llevan detenidas en las calles, las personas gritan su nombre, apellido y cédula de identidad. Las últimas cifras oficiales del Instituto Nacional de Derechos Humanos (INDH) de Chile son de 335 acciones judiciales, 489 víctimas representadas, 6.199 personas detenidas (726 de ellas menores de edad) y 2.365 personas heridas registradas en hospitales. Pero es difícil asegurar la veracidad de estas cifras ya que las instituciones que las difunden pueden haberse visto presionadas por el gobierno.

  El INDH, específicamente, perdió parte de su credibilidad cuando su director negó en un programa de televisión abierta la existencia de violaciones sistemáticas de derechos humanos en nuestro país. Eso es simplemente una mentira, ya que la propia institución se ha querellado en contra del actuar de Carabineros y militares. Se constataron más de 200 casos de mutilación ocular por el uso desmedido de perdigones por parte de Carabineros y maltratos, violencia sexual y torturas en los centros de detención. A esto se sumó el caso del Liceo 7 de Santiago, donde un carabinero disparó en contra de las estudiantes que se encontraban dentro del recinto. Se han efectuado allanamientos en domicilios privados y detenciones desde automóviles sin acreditamientos policial.

  A esta represión uniformada se agrega la acción de un grupo de ciudadanos que se autoproclaman “chalecos amarillos” y dicen que su misión es mantener el orden cívico y proteger la labor de Carabineros, pero en realidad son un grupo violento de ultraderecha. Entre ellos se encuentra un tal John Cobin, quien disparó un arma de fuego contra un manifestante a plena luz del día en las calles ocupadas del balneario de Reñaca y pertenece a la Liga del Sur, una organización de supremacistas blancos de California.

  ¿Qué acciones inmediatas debería adoptar el gobierno de Chile para salvaguardar los derechos civiles y las libertades democráticas?

  A un mes del inicio de las manifestaciones, el gobierno se ha caracterizado por no escuchar a la ciudadanía, y en cambio ha respondido con mayor violencia. En la madrugada del 15 de noviembre los parlamentarios llegaron a un acuerdo político entre cuatro paredes, autodenominado “Acuerdo de Paz” que daría paso a una nueva Constitución. El acuerdo garantiza una “hoja en blanco” para que haya una discusión libre y establece el llamado a una convención constituyente a través de un plebiscito público. Pero parte de la ciudadanía movilizada no está conforme con los plazos ni con el quórum (de dos tercios) establecido para la toma de decisiones del órgano constituyente, ya que piensa que reencauzará el actual proceso democrático a un sistema diseñado para proteger a la clase política y evitar que las voces minoritarias adquieran poder.

  Pienso que lo más importante en este minuto es la seguridad de la ciudadanía y, sobre todo, de las comunidades en mayor riesgo social, que no solo son las más afectadas por el sistema neoliberal, sino que también son el epicentro de la violencia descriteriada de los Carabineros y las Fuerzas Armadas. Un ejemplo de ello fue la comunidad de Lo Hermida, en Peñalolén, que tras el anuncio de las autoridades de no construir las viviendas dignas que les habían prometido se tomaron la viña de Cousiño-Macul. La represión de Carabineros no tardó en llegar, y en una noche hubo más de 200 personas heridas, dos de ellas con trauma ocular severo. Además, Carabineros ingresó y lanzó gas pimienta dentro de hogares donde había personas de la tercera edad y menores.

  Es hora de que el gobierno de Sebastián Piñera detenga la represión, deje en libertad a los más de 6.000 manifestantes que hoy se encuentran en centros de detención, asuma las consecuencias de sus acciones, y - por primera vez en la historia de Chile desde Pinochet - acabe con la impunidad ante las violaciones sistemáticas de derechos humanos. El gobierno de Piñera deberá responder ante la ley por los más de 20 personas muertas y 200 con mutilaciones oculares, las torturas a menores y los abusos sexuales contra mujeres, hombres y personas de género no binario, ya que todo esto fue consecuencia de la pésima administración de su gobierno, y se hubiese evitado, por lo menos en parte, si desde un principio hubiera mantenido un diálogo directo con la población. En ese sentido, la consigna en las calles es “Sin justicia no hay paz”.

  ¿Piensas que las movilizaciones en Chile forman parte de tendencias más amplias a nivel regional?

  Lo que está pasando en Chile es estructuralmente internacional, ya que se deriva de las medidas de austeridad perpetradas por el neoliberalismo. El sistema socioeconómico actual del país tiene sus raíces en el colonialismo europeo y fue consagrado con el golpe de Estado de Pinochet en 1973. Específicamente, con un grupo de estudiantes de las élites chilenas que a mediados de la década del ’50 se formaron en Estados Unidos en la ideología del monetarismo extremo y el neoliberalismo, bajo la tutela de Milton Friedman y Arnold Harberger. Estos alumnos - apodados “Chicago Boys” - sirvieron como ministros de Hacienda y Economía durante la dictadura, instalando medidas de privatización extrema. Estas medidas fueron incorporadas y naturalizadas por una población en estado de shock y represión.

  Las consecuencias de esa privatización se traducen en abusos de las corporaciones multinacionales que son habilitados por gobiernos en todo el mundo. En Chile, un buen ejemplo de ello es el caso expuesto por la periodista Meera Karunananthan en un artículo publicado en The Guardian en 2017. La autora explica que Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP) es el mayor inversionista en Aguas del Valle, Essbio y Esval, que controla el 41% del sistema de agua y saneamiento en Chile. Esto es posible porque la Constitución chilena habilita la propiedad privada de las aguas, lo cual ha dejado a comunidades enteras en situación de sequía y sin el amparo de la ley. Sin embargo, en 2010 la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas aprobó una resolución que reconoció el acceso al agua y al saneamiento como un derecho humano; eso significa que en Chile los derechos humanos se violentan no solo a través de la represión policial sino también a través del sostenimiento de un sistema económico injusto y abusivo.

  El ejemplo citado es uno solo dentro de la gran cadena de abusos internacionales perpetrados por corporaciones que, como la empresa canadiense Barrick Gold y la empresa estatal de Noruega Statkraft, continúan abusando de las políticas del Estado subsidiario chileno y atentando en contra de nuestro planeta. Es por eso que debemos crear conciencia a nivel internacional para que se respeten las decisiones del pueblo de Chile y se brinde protección a sus pueblos originarios, sin los bloqueos ni las intervenciones políticas que resguardan al capital extranjero y perpetúan la destrucción de nuestro medio ambiente.

  ¿Qué apoyos necesita la sociedad civil chilena de la sociedad civil internacional en este proceso?

  En estos momentos es importante reconocer y crear conciencia internacional en torno de los abusos en contra de la clase obrera, los pueblos originarios, las comunidades afrodescendientes y las minorías sexuales. Personalmente he aprendido mucho en el curso de estas movilizaciones. Una de las cosas más subversivas que está impulsando la ciudadanía es el rechazo del binarismo derecha/izquierda que ha afectado severamente a las sociedades latinoamericanas y que ha sido utilizado por los gobiernos neoliberales como excusa para reprimir a la gente trabajadora.  El predominio de una política ciudadana no identificada con ninguna posición dogmática en el espectro derecha/izquierda hizo que el gobierno no pudiera identificar un enemigo ideológico y que acabara declarándole la guerra a su propio pueblo.

  La prensa establecida, nacional e internacional, está tergiversado los hechos y construyendo una narrativa en contra de la población movilizada. Pero a diferencia de lo que ocurría en el pasado, hoy estamos equipados de cámaras en nuestros celulares y podemos informar directamente. Invito a la gente del mundo a informarse a través de canales independientes y de la sociedad civil para saber realmente lo que está ocurriendo.

  El espacio cívico en Chile es clasificado como ‘estrecho’ por elCIVICUS Monitor.

  Contáctese con Soledad Muñoz a través de supágina web o siga amúsica_del_telar en Instagram.

• CHILE: ‘The COP needs the participation of civil society’

  In a context of great mobilisation on climate action around the world and in the run up to the next Conference of the Parties on Climate Change (COP 25), whichwill take placein Chile in November 2019, CIVICUS speaks with Gabriela Burdines of Fiscalía del Medio Ambiente (FIMA), a civil society organisation that since 1998 has worked to promote access to environmental justice and related legislation in Chile.

  In view of access restrictions faced during COP 24 in Poland, what expectations does civil society have of COP 25 in Chile?

  So far we have not been aware of any action by the government against civil society participation. On the contrary, the government has tried to approach civil society by organising information-sharing meetings and facilitating access to the 'green space' at COP 25, which is the area that civil society has traditionally occupied during these events, and which in Chile will be open between 2 December and 13 December at the Metropolitan Park of Cerrillos. In addition, there are civil society initiatives such as the Social Summit for Climate Action, a summit organised by civil society parallel to COP 25, and the Peoples’ Summit, an annual meeting that brings together organisations and networks from various parts of the world to share experiences, promote alternative solutions and strengthen global organisation and local action to curb the socio-environmental catastrophe. While they have not received any official government support, these meetings have so far not experienced any restrictions.

  We are yet to see what happens with the protests that will take place in public spaces, which will begin soon, in September. As civil society we are calling for a great mobilisation to be held during COP 25, on 8 December, which we hope will appeal to all people as well as to Chilean and global civil society organisations (CSOs) participating in the conference.

  How is Chilean civil society organising its participation in COP 25?

  Chile took on the challenge of hosting COP 25 after Jair Bolsonaro's government decided not to hold it in Brazil. This has significantly reduced planning times. Chilean civil society is organising around at least three groups or platforms. The three that I have knowledge of are Civil Society for Climate Action (SCAC), which is in charge of the Social Summit for Climate Action, where FIMA is participating and coordinating several groups; the People's Summit, which is taking place around the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in November and COP 25; and the parallel COP 25 Civil Society Forum.

  So there are several organised spaces. In the specific case of SCAC, this came into existence because there was no other network around the issue at the time, and because there were no spaces for participation in the official COP, since FIMA is the only Chilean CSO that is currently accredited with the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). These groups are all working on different issues. They focus on national climate policy, including consultation on climate change law, decarbonisation planning and nationally determined contributions to greenhouse gas emission reductions under the UNFCCC. And they focus internationally, along with foreign CSOs such as Climate Action Network Latin America, and mainly with organisations from Central America, South America and Europe. In addition, we are doing advocacy and participating in events that will take place prior to COP 25, such as the Climate Action Summit in September and the Pre-COP.

  COP meetings need the participation of civil society, and a participatory COP would have to include parallel events held by civil society, academics, governments and other actors, within the framework of the official conference and in the green space. It would also have to facilitate mobilisations in public spaces and activities in other citizens’ forums.

  From the perspective of Chilean civil society, what are the most important issues that need to be addressed in COP 25?

  During COP 25 it will be very important to have transparency and for the participation of CSOs in events such as this to be guaranteed as a right and established as a minimum requirement that the Chilean government must comply with. I would also highlight the importance of raising awareness about the urgent actions that need to be taken in the fight against climate change and raising the issues that make up the citizen agenda that are essential to curb global warming. Finally, as civil society we will be working for the real decarbonisation of our energy matrix; the termination and reparation of environmental sacrifice zones, that is, those areas encompassing a great number of polluting industries; the promotion of clean energies with a low impact on both the environment and human rights and policies for a fair transition and adaptation to climate change; and the design of market mechanisms that include adequate environmental and social safeguards.

  For years the Chilean government led the negotiation of the Escazú Agreement on environmental democracy, but now refuses to sign it. Why is it refusing, and why is it important that it signs it?

  For several years, Chile, alongside Costa Rica, led the negotiations that culminated with the adoption of the Escazú Agreement. Through a statement when the agreement opened to signature, which they issued on 7 June 2018 in their roles as co-chairs of the negotiation process, Chile and Costa Rica reaffirmed their commitment to signing the treaty and its prompt entry into force. However, ever since the treaty opened for signature on 27 September 2018, Chile has refrained from signing.

  According to information disseminated in the media – since until now civil society has not received any formal response – the government's refusal to sign the Escazú Agreement is due to security and sovereignty reasons and is centred on the clause on cooperation with landlocked states and dispute resolution, which would affect Chile by virtue of its border conflict with Bolivia. However, the government has not said that it will not sign the treaty, but only that it is still ‘under study’. It has also stated that the entire content of the agreement is already guaranteed in our national legislation, so there would be no need to sign it.

  However, we believe that it is important that the government commits to this agreement. Chile has made great legislative progress on matters related to the right to access environmental justice, but still needs to make progress in implementation. No protection exists for climate activists and there are many gaps in matters of information, participation and justice. We recently published a report on the progress made and challenges encountered in guaranteeing access to environmental justice, and much remains to be done in this area. For example, our country has no mechanisms allowing for the provision of free legal counsel on environmental matters.

  In this context, we hope that Chile will soon sign and ratify the Escazú Agreement, and that this will be the beginning of a path that will take us to a different way of making decisions, in which agendas seeking to encourage investment will not undermine the fundamental rights of people and communities.

  Civic space in Chile is classified as ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with FIMA through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@FIMA_Chile on Twitter.

• CHILE: ‘The drafting of the new constitution is a historic opportunity for women’

  CIVICUS speaks with Mariela Infante Erazo, director of Corporación Humanas, about the impacts of the pandemic on women and girls in Chile, and about her hopes for advances coming from the inauguration of a new government and the process to develop a new constitution.

  Founded in 2004, Humanas is a civil society organisation (CSO) dedicated to advocating for the deepening of democracy and the inclusion of women.

  

  What has been the impact of the pandemic on women and girls in Chile?

  The pandemic has had a very serious impact on the human rights of girls and women. Women regressed more than a decade in terms of their labour market participation. When schools closed, they had to take on most of the domestic and care work, both for their children and for sick or older relatives, so many had to stop working. Those who continued to work – including by working from home – were overburdened, which had an impact on both their physical and mental health.

  Gender-based violence also increased shockingly, as confinement and restrictions of movement were quite strict in Chile. According to official statistics, domestic violence calls from adult women tripled. But the situation also affected girls facing family abuse.

  The most feminised fields of work, such as education and health, were the most in demand during the pandemic. Women are in the majority in the professions that fought the pandemic – nurses, health workers, service workers, educators – but were not given much recognition. Female educators had to undertake virtual teaching and this undermined learning, at least among economically and culturally disadvantaged people. In Chile, there is no universal access to a basic internet service, and this has been detrimental for access to education.

  A full recovery is a long way off: unemployment remains high and women’s employment rates are not recovering at the same speed as men’s. A gendered approach is needed to ensure that women can return to the labour market and regain economic autonomy, which is key to exercising our rights.

  How has civil society in general, and Humanas in particular, responded?

  In the first months of the pandemic, and especially during lockdown, there were high levels of activity among feminist organisations: many seminars, meetings and discussions took place. There was a lot of reflection and an eagerness to share. But virtual interactions are very challenging and these spaces eventually ran out of steam: the first year’s participation was reasonably high, but then it began to decline. The format is now a bit worn out; I think we need to think of new forms of participation.

  During these two years, we at Humanas have all been working from home, with the difficulties this sometimes entails for communication among co-workers. Opportunities for informal communication were lost and work slowed down. Regarding our outward work, we had to rethink workshops, seminars and training events, because it is very difficult to do interactive and motivating training sessions via computer. Of course we had to cancel all trips, which was limiting for our regional networking strategy.

  But we learned a lot about how virtual interactions can replace face-to-face ones, and we adapted.

  What are the main women’s rights issues in Chile?

  As in the rest of Latin America, there are multiple challenges. In the field of employment, a major problem is precarious work: women have more precarious, informal and lower-paid jobs, as well as higher unemployment rates.

  Women also bear the bulk of the burden of family care. This limits our free time, harms our health, limits our job prospects and hinders our political participation. That is why the feminist movement, of which we are part, prioritises the establishment of a national care system in Chile.

  In terms of sexual and reproductive rights, abortion – which used to be prohibited in all circumstances – has been legal since 2017 under three grounds: when the life of the pregnant person is in danger, when the foetus suffers from malformations incompatible with life and when the pregnancy is the result of rape.

  But during the pandemic, limitations on the exercise of sexual and reproductive rights increased: contraceptive distribution decreased, defective contraceptives were distributed through the public system and the number of preventative gynaecological examinations decreased. Many people stopped making medical consultations because health centres were overwhelmed by the number of COVID-19 cases, which left many pathologies undiagnosed and untreated.

  Chile does not have a comprehensive law to prevent violence against women in various spheres and manifestations. There is a draft law on the subject that has not made any progress for many years. The number of femicides – and attempted femicides – is very high. Violence levels are very worrying, and they increased even further under lockdown during the pandemic.

  In addition, Chile has become one of the main host countries for Venezuelan migrants and has adopted a restrictive policy towards migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, particularly women. As applying for a visa has become virtually impossible, people are entering Chile irregularly. This has led to an increase in human trafficking and smuggling, the main victims of which are women and girls.

  Irregular migration has also had an impact on labour exploitation. Without documentation, many migrant women do not even dare to go to health centres for fear of being expelled from the country. According to the principles of the Cartagena Declaration, which establishes a broad definition of asylum, Venezuelan women should be considered subjects of international protection, as they are fleeing a law-and-order crisis. But they are not recognised as such and are denied labour and health rights, among many other rights.

  Moreover, racism has increased along with xenophobia. Migrants of African descent, mainly from Colombia and Haiti, have experienced racism and xenophobia. The same is true for the Indigenous population. In the context of the territorial conflict with the Mapuche people in southern Chile, institutional and police violence have differentially affected Indigenous women, for instance during violent raids in their communities.

  How is civil society working to bring these issues into the public agenda?

  At the moment, the Constitutional Convention is the space through which we are channelling the feminist agenda. We have high expectations and are working so that the Convention will produce a general normative framework for the recognition of women’s rights, which will then have to be implemented through laws and public policies.

  I believe the current Constitutional Convention is the first of its kind in the world, with gender parity and reserved seats. The Convention does not reflect the composition of the Chilean elite – white heterosexual men – but the real Chile: it includes Indigenous people, women and people of all educational levels and professions, rather than purely lawyers as is the case with parliament. This diversity of perspectives makes it incredibly rich.

  The process of drafting a new constitution for Chile is a historic opportunity that we are trying to take advantage of to channel women’s rights issues. This process was the product of a massive social mobilisation demanding rights, justice and dignity. It embodies an institutional solution to the discontent and fragmentation of Chile’s social fabric.

  After 40 years, today we have the possibility of reshaping a constitution made during the dictatorship, which does not guarantee social rights. We are only a few months away from having a draft that will be put up to a plebiscite, which is why this current process is for us a great political moment that entails the prospect of progress on women’s rights. 

  How could gender gaps and inequalities be reduced in Chile?

  The pandemic exposed a care crisis that is structural. The private and domestic realm continues to be women’s responsibility, on top of which comes paid work. We want a paradigm shift establishing that this is a shared social responsibility, which should not fall exclusively on women. The creation of a national care system in which the state, the private sector and families – but whole families, not just women – take on family care could bring about a real transformation of the sexual division of labour.

  Attention to the issue of care is a first step in advancing a structural issue such as the sexual division of labour: taking women out of a single role, valuing their roles and even generating new sources of work for women. We need a cross-cutting care paradigm that fosters bonds of respect and solidarity. This is of enormous importance: none of us would be here now if someone had not taken care of us.

  The issue of care is also very relevant in relation to nature, water and the commons, if they are to serve to improve the quality of life for all people, rather than generate wealth for a few. What is important is that the focus be on the common good and not on extraction and accumulation. The current extractivist development model reproduces inequalities and is at the root of violence against women defenders of land and territory.

  Feminism is currently taking a much more holistic perspective and is making alliances with other social movements. We are feminists, but we are connected with other worlds – those of environmentalism, Indigenous women, women defenders of land and territory – which makes us understand that inequalities and exclusions come from the intersection of various systems of domination: those of capitalism, colonialism and patriarchy. In order to generate a profound transformation, we must take a holistic view.

  What are the expectations of Chilean feminists as a new government is inaugurated?

  Our expectations are high but realistic, not excessive. We know that four years is a short time for so many challenges and we will not be able to transform everything in such a short time, but we believe that there is political will to move forward with laws on care, equality and non-discrimination, social rights, sexual and reproductive rights, and gender violence.

  President Gabriel Boric, who took office on 11 March, self-identifies as a feminist. He has already given a positive signal by placing the Ministry of Women’s Affairs within his political cabinet, indicating that he does not understand gender as a sectoral issue; we hope that this will translate into real mainstreaming of the gender approach to permeate all policies.

  The new government’s cabinet is more than gender-balanced: it includes more female than male ministers. Several of the ministers – those of women, justice and national assets – are feminists. This is more important than the fact that there are more women, because it will allow us to make important progress on our agenda. 

  We know that, as in the rest of Latin America, there are very difficult times ahead, with a looming economic crisis and very high inflation. We will have to face a process of life becoming more precarious, in a pandemic context that continues to be somewhat uncertain. We do not know how much of a ‘normal life’ we will be able to recover, nor what it will be like.

  The new government will have to protect the work of the Convention, which is being heavily attacked and criticised by mainstream media, which rejects any redistribution of power. The new government will have to give the Convention budgetary and institutional support to continue its work. It will then receive the draft of the new constitution – which will apparently be quite transformative and will hopefully be ratified through a plebiscite – and will have to undertake the enormous task of gradually implementing parity norms in various spheres.

  Civic space in Chile is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Corporación Humanas through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow @corphumanas on Twitter. 

• CHILE: ‘The million-dollar question is how society will react if a new constitution does not come out of this’

  CIVICUS speaks about Chile’s impending constitutional referendum with Julieta Suárez Cao, PhD in Political Science and Associate Professor of Comparative Politics at the Catholic University of Chile. Julieta played a leading role in the design and promotion of an innovative electoral system that ensured a gender-parity outcome in the 2021 election for Chile’s Constitutional Convention, for which she received the American Political Science Association’s 2022 Public Engagement with Research Award.

  What do you think have been the most novel elements of the Chilean constitutional process?

  A novel element has been the formation of the Constitutional Convention itself. While in other parts of the world there had already been experiences such as reserving seats for Indigenous peoples and allowing non-party candidates, in Chile these two elements were combined with a third, gender parity. This had been implemented in Mexico City but had never been done at the national level.

  Another novel element has to do with the fact that it this a change of constitution, not a simple reform. It is a profound change starting from scratch, without any kind of agreement having set parameters that determine what can and cannot be changed. The only predetermined things were three key procedures: the two-thirds rule for voting on the norms that would go in the constitution, the so-called entry plebiscite to enable the convening of a constitutional convention and the so-called exit plebiscite, meant to have the new constitution approved.

  It is also worth noting that this is a constitutional change taking place in a democratic context, and not in a moment of transition. Although a response to the social and political crisis that Chile is going through, it has not been a hasty reaction to a fleeting situation; the discussion about constitutional reform started long before the 2019 social outburst. Former president Michelle Bachelet had already tried to carry it forward during her last term in office, from 2014 to 2018, but did not succeed. The right wing, which ruled the country under Sebastián Piñera over the following period, warned that it would shelve any constitutional reform initiative, and so it did – until the social outburst forced it to re-evaluate this position, given the need to channel social demands institutionally, by means of a constitution-making process.

  What are the divides in the run-up to the 5 September plebiscite on the new constitution?

  The way dividing lines have been drawn in the face of the constitutional plebiscite is very interesting. The Constitutional Convention has been extremely transparent, perhaps too transparent, because according to some literature, politics sometimes needs a certain opacity. This, on the other hand, became a sort of constitutional reality TV, a show that was broadcast every day, 24 hours a day. Clearly, the news that made it into the media tended to be about inconsequential and even ridiculous issues, so it did not represent what was really going on there. For example, one convention member proposed to dismantle all state institutions; of course, this never even made it out of the commission, but still made headlines for a long time. Such things created an adverse climate around the Convention, which I think affected the campaign.

  Seen in perspective, it was a very dynamic process that in just one year managed to produce a full document for a new constitution. The process was a good one, even if it made public opinion focus on some absurd debates that were magnified by the media.

  This climate of opinion ended up shaping two camps. On the one hand, the rejection camp, which includes not only the right wing, but also many centre-left personalities, including many current senators. These are people who have joined the rejection camp for several reasons, and not only because they do not agree with many of the proposed reforms.

  In short, the rejection coalition ranges from the far right – which not only exists in Chile, but also reached the second round of the presidential election less than a year ago – to some individuals in the political centre. But it was the latter who became the visible face of the campaign against the constitution.

  This has been the result of a good communications strategy that consisted in delegating spokespeople roles to moderate figures while keeping extremists out of sight. They have held almost no marches or public events, because in the run-up to the initial plebiscite such demonstrations included weapons, Nazi flags, swastikas and other images that provoke strong rejection.

  For its part, the coalition in favour of the new constitution includes numerous former convention members, most of whom have campaigned in favour of it, deputies, senators and many popular artists. The government is not allowed to participate in the campaign or speak directly in favour of one or other option. For this reason, it only intervened by providing information: in particular, it collaborated with the printing of the new constitution, which is now one of the best-selling books in Chile.

  Is Chilean society similarly divided?

  Public opinion polls show that Chilean society is not polarised, unlike the elites.

  What we see in Chile is asymmetric polarisation, a phenomenon that also occurs in countries such as Brazil and the USA. What creates asymmetrical polarisation is the presence of right-wing extremism. The extreme left is very small: it collects very few votes and has no media presence and no national visibility. The far right, however, has almost been normalised.

  What is happening now is that it a referendum is by its very nature polarising, simply because it only provides two opposing options. If a plebiscite takes place in a context where the elites are polarised, it deepens division. For the time being, however, I think its effects have not reached deep into Chilean society.

  A few months ago opinion polls appeared to show a majority in favour of approval, but now the opposite seems to be the case. Has the consensus for reform shifted?

  I wouldn’t say that reformist consensus has been eroded. Practically nobody defends Pinochet’s Constitution: almost everybody who promotes rejection does so with the argument that rejection must be followed by reform. In other words, almost nobody advocates for keeping the current constitution, although if rejection wins, that is precisely what will happen, at least in the short term. Given the lack of agreement within the rejectionist coalition, its victory would open up a period of enormous uncertainty.

  While reformist consensus has not been eroded, a distorted climate of opinion has been created by disinformation campaigns, presenting implausible interpretations of debates and fake news to sow doubts about the contents of the constitutional text. For example, the claim that the new constitution does not protect private property or that Indigenous people would have ‘privileges’ was widely circulated. All of this has interfered with public debate and cast doubt over the viability of the proposal.

  What do think are the most positive and the most negative aspects of the new constitution?

  Personally, I like the new constitution very much. It establishes a political system with less presidential powers and a better balance between the executive and legislative branches. The current constitution is an authoritarian text that is very biased in favour of the ‘strong man’.

  I also like the definition of Chile as a regional state, a sort of intermediate form between the unitary and federal state. Chile is one of the most centralised countries in Latin America and the most centralised among democratic Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development member countries.

  The whole agenda of rights and the social state embraced by the new constitution also seems very positive to me. The incorporation of gender parity, a gendered perspective and multiculturalism are great advances. It was high time for plurinationality and Indigenous peoples to be recognised.

  The doubts I have concern some issues that are outside my area of expertise, related to some aspects of plurinationality, such as the implementation of differentiated justice systems and Indigenous autonomies. This is also one of the issues that has highest levels of rejection among public opinion, for reasons that include racism, classism and a complex context in the south of Chile, where there is an ongoing conflict between the state and some Indigenous Mapuche communities.

  But the truth is, most of these issues are only stated in the constitution and will be subject to ordinary legislation that must come from the current Congress, which has no reserved seats for Indigenous peoples. Therefore, in my opinion, positions on these issues will be tempered and there won’t be any radical changes.

  Among the public, it is social rights that have the most support. Few people defend the neoliberal or subsidiary state that Chile currently has, although certain sectors of elites are concerned about the cost of changes: they wonder where the money will come from to finance all these rights, as if this were a good argument for deciding whether or not to recognise a right!

  What will happen if the new constitution is approved, and what will happen if it is rejected?

  If the constitution is approved the process will continue, as many provisions in the new constitution require additional ordinary legislation. In that case, a process of intense legislative activity will begin to give form to the new constitution’s mandates.

  If rejection wins, much will depend on how big its win is. If it wins by a large margin, it will be more difficult for the constitution-making process to continue. If the rejectionist option wins, the government will immediately submit a bill to call for a new election to select convention members. But the approval of such a bill requires over 57 per cent of the votes in both chambers, a majority the government does not have, so it will need the right wing’s votes. The right’s willingness to sit down and negotiate will depend on its margin of victory.

  If it wins narrowly, it will try to design a more inoffensive constitution-making process, with a smaller convention, a shorter mandate, no gender parity and no Indigenous peoples or very few reserved seats. If it wins by a landslide, there will be no constitutional convention, but a reform passed through Congress or designed by a commission of experts. We would be back to square one and absolutely everything would have to be renegotiated.

  The million-dollar question is how society will react if a new constitution does not come out of this and the process does not continue or continues in a deficient way. I do not dare to venture an answer to this question.

  ---

  Civic space in Chile is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Follow@jujuchi on Twitter.

• CHILE: ‘The proposed constitution reflects the country’s division rather than being an instrument for its union’

  CIVICUS speaks with Patricia Reyes, director of Fundación Multitudes, about the process to develop a new constitution in Chile since a previous draft was rejected in a referendum in September 2022.

  Fundación Multitudes is a civil society organisation dedicated to generating spaces and building capacity for civil society to participate effectively in decision-making processes.

  Why does Chile need a new constitution?

  The constitution-making process in which Chile has been immersed since 2022 was a response to a longstanding social and political crisis that erupted in October 2019. Faced with the eruption of social demands for greater protection, equity and guarantees of basic social rights such as education, health and social security, which in some cases were expressed with unusual violence, all political sectors agreed to initiate a constitution-making process.

  Initially, an inclusive process unfolded that produced a draft constitution that incorporated adequate standards of rights protection for a democratic and social state. But the proposal failed to win the support of the more conservative parts of society and was rejected in a referendum, largely because of mistakes made in the process. These were mainly due to the political inexperience of the members of the constituent commission, who were mostly independents with no links to political parties. They overlooked the need to reach broad agreements encompassing all parts of society, and particularly traditional political players. Other factors were the incorporation of some drastic changes in political institutions and the inability to communicate the benefits of the new constitutional text adequately to the public as a whole.

  After the proposal was rejected, the social demands that had triggered the process were still there, and the existing constitution continued to be as ineffective in resolving them as it was when the social outburst occurred. To solve our problems of democratic coexistence, we need a new social pact that can unite us around a shared institutional project. That is why the constitution-making process was resumed, this time in a more traditional format, which has produced a new draft that will again have to be submitted to a popular vote.

  How different is the new draft from the one that emerged from the 2021 Constitutional Convention?

  The new draft is a lot more similar to the current constitution. It introduces more modest changes. Compared to the previous one, I think it rolls back some rights that had already been won, particularly for historically excluded groups such as women. Nor does it introduce recognition of other vulnerable population groups , such as Indigenous peoples and children and adolescents. But it does share with the previous draft the reaffirmation of freedom of enterprise and the concept of a subsidiary state.

  The two processes have been quite different because in the first case the constituent body included many citizens elected by popular vote and independent of political parties, while the second involved a Council of Experts appointed by the two chambers of Congress and a Constitutional Council elected by popular vote but made up mostly of members proposed by political parties ranging from the centre to the far right.

  However, there is one thing that the proposals resulting from both processes share: both have been considered partisan in nature, viewed as aligned with the interests of a specific political camp. They reflect the division of Chile rather than being an instrument for its union.

  What changes would the new draft make to the existing constitution?

  Overall, the text reproduces the current institutional framework, except for the fact that it reduces the number of members of parliament. It also enshrines the same rights as the current constitution. It shares many of its strengths but also suffers from many of the same weaknesses.

  The draft contains several articles that have caused controversy because of the regressive way in which they could be interpreted. For example, in the area of reproductive rights, constitutional provisions could mean that the rule that currently allows abortion in cases of rape, danger to the life of the mother and non-viability of the foetus could be declared unconstitutional.

  The incorporation of a special anti-corruption body could enter into conflicts of competence with the current Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic. Additionally, some populist tools would be introduced to allow the immediate expulsion of undocumented migrants, along with some tax exemptions – a matter that generally does not belong in a constitutional text – and a number of highly sensitive provisions, such as the possibility of allowing terminally ill convicts to serve their sentences at home, which could benefit people convicted of crimes against humanity committed during the period of dictatorship.

  On the plus side, a Victims’ Ombudsman’s Office would be established and progress would be made on decentralisation, granting greater powers to local governments.

  What’s the position of different groups towards the referendum to be held on the latest draft?

  Most right-wing parties approve of the project, while those on the left reject it and those in the centre have a great diversity of opinions, with some campaigning for approval and others for rejection.

  But the last word will be up to voters, who are going through what has been defined as a moment of constitutional exhaustion. Because of the lengthy and controversial process and the lack of cross-cutting agreements, there is a lot of apathy and indecision, as well as conflicting positions. Right now polls show a majority of people would reject the new constitution, but the vote is on 17 December, so there is still a long way to go, and there are many people who have not yet decided how they will vote.

  ---

  Civic space in Chile is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Fundación Multitudes through itswebsite orFacebook account, subscribe to itsYouTube channel and follow @FMultitudes onInstagram andTwitter.

• CHILE: ‘There has been a citizen awakening of historical proportions’

  Protests broke out in Chile in October 2019, initially led by students rejecting an increase in the price of transport and quickly escalating into mass demonstrations urging structural change. Protests were repressed with savagery by security forces. CIVICUS speaks about the protests with Soledad Fátima Muñoz, a Chilean activist and the founder of a mentoring programme and feminist festival,Current Symposium. (Photo by Kati Jenson)

  How did something that started with a small increase in the price of the metro ticket become a mobilisation of unprecedented dimensions?

  The first thing to clarify is that this was not caused just by an increase in the price of the metro ticket, nor is it an isolated protest. Mobilisations against the abuses derived from the neoliberal system have been a constant occurrence in Chile over the years. Among these were mass protests against the privatised pension system, against the Trans-Pacific Economic Cooperation Agreement and against the Fisheries Law, feminist protests and protests by the movement promoted under the slogan ‘Ni Una Menos’ (not one less), mobilisations about the historic debt owed to teachers, the student protests held in 2006 and 2011, and the more recent mobilisations by students against the so-called Safe Classroom Law. On top of this, there’s the outrage caused by systematic state repression of the Indigenous peoples in Wallmapu, the deaths of Camilo Catrillanca and Macarena Valdés, and the imprisonment of Machi Francisca Linconao and Lonko Alberto Curamil, among other political prisoners. Combined with a generation-long dissatisfaction with the impunity granted to those responsible for the tortures, disappearances and killings of thousands of people under the dictatorship led by Augusto Pinochet, this produced an environment conducive to a citizen awakening of historical proportions. After years of abuse, the Chilean people woke up and want a new constitution, since the current one was drafted under the dictatorship and was designed to promote social inequality.

  The big difference between the current protests and all the previous ones is the response they triggered from the government of President Sebastián Piñera, who declared a state of emergency and a curfew, unleashing a police and military repression against the Chilean people that is only paralleled by the crimes perpetrated during the dictatorship.

  The protests are not being centrally organised and are not guided by a single political motto; there are many independent initiatives calling for people to gather and demonstrate, through social media or through various independent information channels. Some of the most widespread demands call for a constituent assembly to write a new constitution. Frequently demanded are the nationalisation of basic services and natural resources, including copper, lithium and water. There are also demands for direct democracy and binding referendums, the prosecution of political and economic corruption, respect for Indigenous peoples and plurinational sovereignty, and for health, education and decent pensions. On top of these there are also more specific demands, such as raising the minimum monthly wage to 500,000 Chilean pesos (approx. US$650), reducing legislators’ salaries and raising taxes on the richest.

  These were the reasons why the movement began, but in the face of excessive state repression, citizens are now also demanding the resignation and prosecution of President Piñera and all the people involved in the systematic violations of human rights that have taken place over the past month.

  Twenty deaths have been reported during the repression of the protests, in addition to large numbers of people injured and under arrest. Could you describe the human rights violations committed against protesters?

  It is difficult to estimate right now the human rights violations that are being committed by the Piñera administration, since – as was also the case under the dictatorship – thousands of detainees are being kept incommunicado. That is why, when people are taken away in the streets, they shout out their name, surname and identity card number. The latest official figures from the National Institute of Human Rights (INDH) account for 335 legal actions initiated, 489 victims represented, 6,199 people under arrest – 726 of them minors – and 2,365 injured people registered in hospitals. But it is difficult to confirm the veracity of these figures since the institutions that disseminate them may have been pressured by the government.

  The INDH in particular partly lost its credibility when its director denied the existence of systematic human rights violations in our country on an open-air TV programme. That was simply a lie, since the institution itself had submitted complaints in the face of arbitrary actions by the police and the military. More than 200 cases of eye mutilations have happened as a result of the excessive use of pellets by the police, and there have been numerous cases of mistreatment, sexual violence and torture in detention centres. Additionally, there was an instance of repression at a school, Liceo 7 in Santiago, where a carabinero, a member of the military police, fired against students who were inside the building. There have also been raids on private homes and arrests made out of cars without police identification.

  On top of repression by the security forces, there is a group of citizens who call themselves ‘yellow vests’ and say their mission is to maintain civic order and protect the work of the police, but in reality they are a violent far-right group. Among its members is John Cobin, who fired a firearm at a protester in broad daylight on the busy streets of the Reñaca resort. He belongs to the League of the South, a white supremacist organisation from California.

  What immediate actions should the Chilean government take to safeguard civil rights and democratic freedoms?

  A month into the protests, the government has not yet listened to its citizens, and instead has responded with increasing violence. In the early hours of 15 November, lawmakers reached a political agreement behind closed doors, named the ‘Peace Agreement’ which would lead to a new constitution. The agreement guarantees a ‘blank slate’ for free discussion to take place and establishes that the call for a constitutional convention is going to be done through a public referendum. But part of the mobilised citizenry is not satisfied with either the deadlines or the required quorum of two thirds established for decision-making by the constituent body, since they think it will redirect the current democratic process towards a system designed to protect the political class and prevent minority voices from gaining power.

  I think what’s most important at this moment is the security of the citizenry and, above all, of the communities at greatest social risk, which are not only the most affected by the neoliberal system, but are also at the epicentre of the undiscerning violence applied by carabineros and the armed forces. An example of this happened in the community of Lo Hermida, in Peñalolén. After the authorities announced that they would not build the decent homes they had promised, inhabitants occupied the Cousiño-Macul vineyard. `Police repression was not long in coming, and in just one night 200 people were injured, two of them with severe eye trauma. In addition, carabineros broke in and threw pepper gas into homes with older people and minors inside.

  It is time for the Piñera government to stop the repression, release the more than 6,000 protesters who are currently being held in detention centres, take responsibility for the consequences of its actions, and – for the first time in Chilean history since Pinochet – end impunity for the systematic human rights violations that have been committed. The Piñera government must respond before the law for the more than 20 people who have been killed and the 200 that experienced eye mutilations, plus the torture of minors and sexual abuses against women, men and non-binary people, since all of these were consequences of the lousy decisions made by the government, and would have been at least partly avoided if they had maintained a direct dialogue with the public since the beginning. In this regard, the slogan chanted on the streets is: "There is no peace without justice."

  Do you think that the mobilisations in Chile are part of broader regional trends?

  What is happening in Chile is structurally international, since it derives from the austerity measures perpetrated by neoliberalism. Chile’s current socio-economic system is rooted in European colonialism and was enshrined by Pinochet’s coup d'état in 1973. Specifically, it came from a group of students belonging to Chilean elites who studied in the USA in the mid-1950s, where they absorbed the ideology of extreme monetarism and neoliberalism, under the tutelage of Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger. These students – nicknamed the ‘Chicago Boys’ – served as finance and economics ministers under the dictatorship and introduced extreme privatisation measures. These measures were accepted and naturalised by a citizenry that was in a state of shock and repression.

  The consequences of this privatisation translate into abuses perpetrated by multinational corporations that are enabled by governments around the world. In Chile, a good example of this is the case uncovered by journalist Meera Karunananthan in an article published by The Guardian in 2017. The author explains that the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan is the largest investor in Aguas del Valle, Essbio and Esval, which control 41 per cent of the water and sanitation system in Chile. This is possible because the constitution allows for the private ownership of water, which has left entire communities in a drought situation and unprotected by the law. However, in 2010 the United Nations’ General Assembly passed a resolution recognising access to water and sanitation as a human right. This means that in Chile human rights are violated not only through police repression but also through the maintenance of an unfair and abusive economic system.

  The example cited above is just one within the great chain of international abuses perpetrated by corporations, including by the Canadian company Barrick Gold and the Norwegian state company Statkraft, which continue to abuse the policies of the Chilean subsidiary state and threaten our planet. That is why we must raise awareness at an international level so that the decisions of the Chilean people are respected and protection is provided to Indigenous peoples, without blockages or political interventions protecting foreign capital and perpetuating the destruction of our environment.

  What support does Chilean civil society need from international civil society in this process?

  At this time, it is important to recognise and create international awareness about the abuses committed against the working class, Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities and sexual minorities. I personally have learned a lot in the course of these mobilisations. One of the most subversive things that citizens are doing is rejecting the right/left binarism that has so severely affected Latin American societies and that has been used by neoliberal governments as an excuse to repress working people. The prevalence of citizen politics that do not identify with any dogmatic position on the right/left spectrum meant that the government could not identify an ideological enemy and ended up declaring war on its own people.

  Mainstream national and international media are misrepresenting the facts and building a narrative against the mobilised population. But unlike what happened in the past, we are now equipped with phone cameras and can report directly. I invite people around the world to get informed through independent media and civil society channels to really know what is happening.

  Civic space in Chile is classified as ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Soledad Muñoz through herwebsite or followmúsica_del_telar on Instagram.

• CHILE: ‘There is social consensus that the arbitrary exclusion of diverse families is unacceptable’

  CIVICUS speaks with Marco Becerra, director of ACCIONGAY, about the process leading to the recent passage of Chile’s Equal Marriage Law. ACCIONGAY is a civil society organisation founded in 1987 in response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, which was then ignored or minimised as a problem that only affected ‘risk groups’. Over time it expanded its scope of action to advocate for the rights of LGBTQI+ people, based on the principle that all people have the right to self-determination in relation to their lives, bodies, health, relationships and sexuality.

  What was the process leading to the legalisation of equal marriage in Chile, and what role did ACCIONGAY play in it?

  It was a long process, lasting about 30 years. The movement for sexual and gender diversity in Chile began to emerge in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This process had different stages. At first, work focused on the consolidation and visibility of the movement in a context of post-dictatorship political transition that was very unfavourable to the demands for equality of LGBTQI+ people. In the second stage, work focused on political advocacy to achieve effective commitment by political groups to tackle the challenges related to the inclusion of LGBTQI+ people.

  By the late 1990s, some important changes began to take place, such as the repeal of a law that criminalised sexual relations between adult men. However, other demands – such as that for equal marriage – only came into the public conversation around 2005, when equal marriage was legalised in Spain. Around that time ACCIONGAY received a visit from Spanish activist Pedro Zerolo, who helped us understand the importance of broadening the debate on civil unions and the recognition of LGBTQI+ people’s rights.

  In a broader sense, I would venture to say that demands for equality before the law were the result of a social and cultural change that Latin America had been experiencing for several years. The legalisation of equal marriage in Argentina and Uruguay, as well as its progress throughout Europe, prompted Chilean LGBTQI+ movements and sexual diversity organisations to mobilise around equality issues.

  It is important to highlight the contributions of numerous organisations and activists who worked consistently over the years to build alliances with progressive political groups, which became committed to these struggles. The idea of civil unions became a reality during the first government of President Michelle Bachelet, in 2015, and later on, as favourable public opinion grew and the perception of these inequalities as an injustice increased, the demand for equal rights for same-sex families gained momentum.

  The Equal Marriage Bill was sent to Congress by Bachelet’s second government in 2017 and finally passed in December 2021. It will come into force in March and will represent a very significant change for the lives of hundreds of families with same-sex parents who did not have any legal recognition and therefore experienced complete defencelessness before the state.

  The keys to achieving this breakthrough were movement coordination, advocacy with political decision-makers and campaigning to raise awareness and sensitise public opinion.

  How did this process interact with the 2019 wave of protests and the process to develop a new constitution that followed?

  Chile is going through a complex, epoch-changing process that came about as a result of the 2019 social outburst. But the demands for equality and recognition of the rights of LGBTQI+ people largely predate this. This movement was already very strong before the social outburst, including a network of organisations that was very active and mobilised since the 1990s. However, the context of social mobilisation helped create an environment conducive to the consolidation of LGBTQI+ movement as a presence recognisable on the streets in citizen protests demanding more equality.

  The profound social change that began to take place in Chile picked up on the historical struggles of LGBTQI+ organisations and movements that rose up in the context of the 2019 social outburst. To a large extent this was reflected in the number of LGBTQI+ people who recently got elected, especially for the Convention in charge of drafting the new constitution, as well as in the ministerial appointments of LGBTQI+ people made by the next president, Gabriel Boric.

  Why did approval take so long, when polls showed very high levels of public support?

  Although Chile has a very active civil society, its political system, even following recent changes, still includes extremely conservative enclaves. This was reflected in the difficulty that Congress had in moving this law forward, not least because there was no strong commitment from successive presidents. Nevertheless, Bachelet’s second government did act on the idea of legalising equal marriage. It was during her government that the Civil Union Law was passed and the Gender Identity Bill was sent to Congress, which was then passed during President Rafael Piñera’s term.

  From the point of view of people’s perceptions, changes occurred because a social consensus was reached that the arbitrary exclusion of diverse families is unacceptable. Support for equal marriage is striking: almost 70 per cent of Chileans agree, and a similar number support adoption by same-sex couples.

  Campaigns for equal marriage were mainly developed by LGBTQI+ organisations with the support of other social movements, human rights organisations and feminists, to name a few. At the same time, alliances, solidarity and trust were built not only with other social organisations but also with progressive sectors within political parties. Support for the Equal Marriage Law was quite cross-cutting, including a segment of the liberal centre-right that contributed their votes to make it possible. Only ultra-conservative sectors excluded themselves.

  Some leaders of Evangelical Pentecostal churches, which have achieved some social influence in Chile, mobilised against the Equal Marriage Law, but were defeated in the parliamentary debate. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, remained silent, probably because in recent years it has lost social and political relevance as a consequence of the scandals of paedophilia and sexual abuse committed by members of the clergy against children and adolescents.

  What will be the immediate effects of the new law, and what remains to be done?

  This law will have immediate consequences as it will guarantee the enjoyment of all rights and the positive effects of marriage regardless of people’s sex or sexual orientation. As the law includes issues of adoption and parentage, it will solve a number of problems experienced by families of same-sex partners with children. For instance, non-biological parents had no legal rights to the children they were raising as theirs; now they will get legal recognition.

  Chile has experienced a series of legal advances: the Anti-Discrimination Law in 2012, the Civil Union Law in 2015, the Gender Identity Law in 2018 and the Equal Marriage Law starting in 2022. However, high levels of discrimination persist in work and education. Violence against LGBTQI+ communities is rampant.

  From March onwards, we will face the enormous challenge of reviewing our work agenda, especially since after 11 March we will have a progressive government that has incorporated equality and recognition of LGBTQI+ communities in its policy programme. 

  We are sure that this will be a very different government from its predecessors, and we are very hopeful that it will be possible to start closing the gap of real inclusion of LGBTQI+ people in all areas of social life, from public administration institutions to the educational sphere.

  Civic space in Chile is rated ‘obstructed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with ACCIONGAY through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@acciongay on Twitter.

• CHILE: ‘There's radical discontent with how the country's been ruled for decades’

  

  Protests broke out in Chile in October 2019, initially led by students rejecting an increase in the price of transport and quickly escalating into mass demonstrations urging structural change. Protests were repressed with savagery by security forces. CIVICUS speaks about the protests with Nicole Romo, director of the public policy area of ​​the Community of Solidarity Organisations (Comunidad de Organizaciones Solidarias), a network of more than 200 Chilean civil society organisations that work to combat poverty and exclusion. Together, its member organisations work with more than 900,000 people, mobilising around 11,000 staff members and over 17,000 volunteers.

   

  Why did protests break out in Chile, and what made them escalate as they did?

  The social outbreak in Chile came after decades of the promotion of a development model that focused on creating wealth, which for years was distributed with no fairness or justice. Individualistic, short-term and assistance-based social policies that deeply damaged social cohesion and the community and collective sense of wellbeing were implemented. Alongside this there were housing policies that segregated Chileans into ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ territories where access to goods and services was distributed in the same way, a pension system that impoverishes senior citizens, lack of access to healthcare in a timely manner and with adequate quality standards, and an education system that also segregates and grants diametrically opposed opportunities to the rich and the poor.

  In this context, the motto ‘it is not about 30 pesos, it is about 30 years’, which was heard a lot during the protests, expresses quite well the feeling that prevailed among the citizenry. Although this social movement began with students massively evading payment of public transportation fares, after a rise of 30 Chilean pesos in the cost of a metro ticket, deep-seated malaise has been accumulating for over 30 years. There have been several protests to advance various social demands over the years, but this profound discontent had never been heard or even made visible. The social eruption of 18 October 2019 was the result of the accumulation of radical discontent with the government and the way the country has been ruled for several decades.

  How have people and civil society organisations reacted to the protests?

  The national state of mobilisation that we are experiencing has clearly shown that two Chiles coexist within the same territory – two Chiles that do not know each other and do not intersect. This division is the brutal expression of the difference in the quality of life between those who have privileges and those who don’t. Our country spent the past few decades convincing itself that achievements are based on individual merit, that each person’s efforts are the only guarantee of social mobility, which in fact, as shown by a variety of studies, is absolutely untrue.

  In the face of this, data from various surveys show a high rate of approval of social demands among citizens. On the other hand, people are more divided when it comes to violence, and especially the forms of violence that have resulted in damage to public and private infrastructure, such as looting, the destruction of stores and the burning of commercial premises and other types of services, as well as regarding violence by state agents, who have been responsible for numerous human rights violations.

  How has the government reacted to the protests?

  The government has handled this conflict in a quite regrettable way, by mainly emphasising its security agenda, criminalising protests and furthering a legislative agenda focused on punishing protesters, which reveals their lack of understanding of the nature of the protests, their demands and their urgency.

  The social agenda proposed by the government is quite weak. It does not seek to make radical changes to existing structures that deepen inequality and does not guarantee the rights of all people. The changes and the contents of the social agenda led by the government are not up to the protesters’ demands and their urgency. Its numerous initiatives and measures involve limited improvements, which are necessary but will not affect the structures that reproduce unfairness in our country; therefore, they only duplicate the same old short-term public policies that are not based on a rights approach and focus on the individual rather than on the needs of the thousands of families in vulnerable conditions.

  The latest reports speak of dozens of people dead and hundreds injured. Could you describe the extent of the repression and human rights violations committed during the protests?

  Since the protests broke out in Chile, numerous human rights violations have been committed by state security agents. These violations have been denounced by national and international organisations, but the state has tended to downplay them.

  It is essential for us to reiterate that at all times unrestricted respect for human rights must prevail, and that each case of violation must be investigated, resulting in punishment for the perpetrators and reparation for the victims. Civil society is key in monitoring and watching over these processes, to ensure that they remain transparent and foster accountability of the state.

  Data from the National Institute of Human Rights indicate that in 48 per cent of the observed cases of detention, detainees were protesting peacefully, regardless of whether or not they were occupying roads. Likewise, gases were used indiscriminately in 56 per cent of recorded cases, and in 60 per cent of the cases observed, force was not used in a graduated way, and was instead applied without prior notice and in the absence of any kind of dialogue. There were 2,727 documented cases of injured adults who were treated in hospitals, as well as 211 children and adolescents, and 241 people with eye injuries. There was also a series of human rights violations against people detained and held in police stations. The most frequent of these was the excessive use of force during detention, with 751 cases. Overall, 190 cases of sexual harassment or sexual violence were recorded, 171 of them being cases in which detainees were stripped naked.

  How have people and civil society organisations responded to the state repression and rights violations that occurred during the protests?

  We have responded without fear. Entire cities have shouted fearlessly in protest at the human rights violations that occurred during the past months. Many people have compiled testimonial material to make visible the level of exposure and violence they experienced during the protests.

  From civil society organisations the responses have been diverse, but generally speaking all organisations have called for non-violence and the establishment of new spaces for dialogue leading to the strengthening of a society based on social justice and fairness. Without a doubt, civil society organisations have played a prominent role, promoting the establishment of meeting spaces and helping present the demands of the citizenry. This was done through the creation of a large network of networks called the New Social Pact, which brings together more than 600 civil society organisations that have worked tirelessly to search for real solutions to substantial demands.

  The Community of Solidarity Organisations supports the principle of nonviolence and since day one of the protests we voiced the need for unrestricted respect for human rights. Even if it is not our field of work, we believe that this outbreak revealed how urgent it is to restructure the police forces. We faithfully believe in the data published by the National Institute of Human Rights, and we know that their work is conscious and rigorous, as is the report delivered by Amnesty International, so as civil society we will support from our field of work all actions aimed at bringing reparation for the rights violated during the protests.

  What immediate measures should the Chilean government take to overcome this crisis? What are the chances of this happening and a lasting solution being reached?

  A lasting solution would require a long process of construction and change including short-term, medium-term and long-term measures.

  The short-term and medium-term measures are related to the social agenda, which has three dimensions. The first consists in improving the quality of life through measures on issues such as health, education and pensions. The second dimension includes measures to end abuses by economic and political elites and close the gaps in justice administration between cases involving members of the economic elite and ordinary citizens, who face completely different sanctions for committing crimes: ‘ethics classes’ for the former and effective jail terms for the latter. The third dimension involves raising the resources that the state needs to implement a deep and powerful social agenda. Chile requires a tax reform to increase revenue and needs a much more efficient tax management system.

  The long-term axis refers to a constituent process whose main milestones have already been established: an initial referendum, the election of representatives and a ratification referendum. However, conditions guaranteeing participation by a cross section of people, equitable representation, gender parity, minority quotas and independent candidacies have not yet been achieved. Without these conditions in place, the legitimacy of the constitutional process will severely weaken.

  Civic space in Chile is classified as ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Comunidad de Organizaciones Solidarias through theirwebsite orFacebook page, or follow@ComunidadOrgSol and@nromo_flores on Twitter.

• CHILE: ‘This historic constituent moment was achieved by citizens’

  CIVICUS speaks with Marcela Guillibrand De la Jara, Executive Director of the Chilean Volunteer Network (Red de Voluntarios de Chile) and General Coordinator of Now It’s Our Time to Participate (Ahora Nos Toca Participar). The Volunteer Network is a national platform that brings together Chilean civil society organisations (CSOs) that promote voluntary action. Now It's Our Time to Participate is an initiative of social organisations gathered in the New Social Pact (NPS-Chile) that seeks to contribute to strengthening democracy and social cohesion by promoting citizen participation in the plebiscite on a new constitution scheduled for October 2020 and in the constituent process that the plebiscite is expected to trigger. The campaign focuses on citizen training, the creation of spaces for dialogue and the generation of proposals to feed into the constituent process.

  

  In late 2019, a referendum was called in order to trigger a constituent process. To what extent was this the victory of a mobilised society?

  In October 2019, Chile reactivated its political and social life, collectively and throughout its territory. Citizens took to the streets to meet, to speak and take part in politics, as they had not done for a long time. This is how specific and unconventional participatory experiences emerged, locally rooted and with a local identity, mixed with expressions of discontent and frustration towards the structural inequality that had developed and manifested in our country for a long time.

  All this was initially motivated by young people’s dissatisfaction with an increase of 30 pesos (approx. US$0.33) on the price of the ticket used in the Chilean capital’s transportation system, the Metro. In reaction to the increase, demonstrations took place, initially in the form of fare evasion but eventually embracing slogans such as ‘It's not 30 pesos, it's 30 years’, a reference to the time that we have been living in a democracy – since our democratic transition took place in 1990 – and the feeling, shared by a large part of the population, that we have not been included in the decision-making process. This was fuelled by high levels of mistrust in institutions, great political disaffection and the reaction against a model that pushed our country towards more individualistic views and forms of participation in all areas.

  Faced with a level of mobilisation that did not relent, on 15 November 2019 political parties across the spectrum signed the ‘Agreement for Social Peace and a New Constitution’. As a result, citizens were given the opportunity to decide if they want a new constitution through a plebiscite that will be held on 25 October 2020. In the plebiscite, citizens must also select the mechanism that would be used to draft a new constitution: a constitutional convention, a body fully elected for the purpose of drafting the constitution; or a mixed constitutional convention, which would include both current Congress members, who would make up 50 per cent of the body, and representatives elected exclusively for this task, who would make up the other 50 per cent. A large part of society views this process as opening up a unique opportunity for us to choose freely the Chile we want. Although technically what gave rise to this opportunity was an agreement between various political groupings, this historic constituent moment was achieved by citizens.

  Within this process, civil society has also made historic progress on gender issues. Various social organisations that have long worked very hard to promote and defend women’s rights pushed the demand for gender parity in the constituent process, and managed to impose it thanks to the echo they found among various political groups represented in Congress. If the option in favour of drafting a new constitution wins in the plebiscite, the gender parity rule will apply in the election of constitutional delegates. The rule, however, will only be fully operational if the constitutional convention alternative prevails, since in that case all members of the constituent body would be elected in a single election. If the mixed constitutional convention alternative is chosen, the parity rule would apply to the half of the body that will be elected, but not to the half that will be made up of legislators who already occupy congressional seats.

  What stance has Chilean civil society taken regarding the prospect of a constitutional reform process?

  As the plebiscite date approaches, interest on the subject has increased. We have had localised quarantines for more than five months due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the organisations with which we interact have had their attention focused mainly on the survival of their programmes and supporting their target populations, since economically the pandemic has hit them very hard. Even so, little by little they have shown growing interest in constitutional issues. For our part, we have stayed connected with them and we have worked together to offer them a platform that contains citizenship training materials that they can use and to coordinate various spaces to conduct training through digital platforms and other mechanisms suited to reach a variety of territories, such as radio and text messaging.

  It is in this context that we launched Now It’s Our Time to Participate, an initiative of the New Social Pact (Nuevo Pacto Social) network, which brings together just over 700 CSOs. The initiative seeks to guarantee the training of citizens and citizen participation in the context of the constituent process that will likely take place. Our focus is on activating citizens, providing them with training tools and jointly generating spaces for participation and dialogue to regain prominence in decision-making in our country. For this, in the run-up to the plebiscite, we have organised a range of key content in several sections – citizen participation, constitution and constituent process – that we have made available to citizens and CSOs through our web platform, www.ahoranostocaparticipar.cl, as well as on social media and through other means. On the basis of this content we have developed a range of training options that include accessible materials in various languages, such as Aymara, Mapudungun and Rapa Nui, as well as in Creole. The idea is that all the people who wish to can find answers in these materials about the constitution and the likely constituent process, in order to be able to take part in the plebiscite in a free and informed manner and thus contribute to achieving the most massive vote in Chilean history.

  The plebiscite had originally been planned for April before being postponed to October due to the pandemic. Have there been any conflicts or disagreements regarding the postponement and the new date?

  The health scenario created by the pandemic forced the relevant institutions to move the date of the plebiscite to October. The section of civil society with which we interact understood that this change was necessary based on a higher common good, people’s health. At the moment we take for granted that the plebiscite will take place in October, since the institutions that could make the decision to change the date have not yet done so, so we continue to work based on that date. Currently, issues related to the implementation of the plebiscite are being discussed. They focus firstly on health safeguards, but also on how to promote citizen participation in this process, which will undoubtedly have very different characteristics from what we are used to. Intersectoral working groups have been set up to work on the issue. First, the Senate set up a forum to receive recommendations and analyse the comparative experiences of other countries that have been in the same situation. Then the Electoral Service kept the forum to continue working along the lines of guaranteeing a safe and participatory plebiscite. Various CSOs have been invited to participate, including Now It's Our Time to Participate. Jointly with these organisations, we have produced a document with recommendations that range from health issues to campaign regulations, and also includes issues such as access to information and citizen capacity development, which is what we work on. This space continues in operation.

  Are measures being taken so that people’s participation in the campaign and vote is not undermined by the effects of the pandemic?

  The current pandemic scenario is naturally forcing us to adopt safeguards. The electoral advertising phase kicked off on 26 August, so now it is possible to disseminate campaign materials in public places that are expressly authorised by the Electoral Service, as well as on the media. Debate is taking place with great force on social media, which given the need to take precautions, avoid crowds and physical contact and respect sanitary restrictions decreed by the authorities, is currently the main space to gain visibility.

  What to do to guarantee everyone’s right to participate on the day of the plebiscite is something that has been under discussion. As a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, some places in our country remain under confinement, multiple sectors are quarantined due to the presence of active cases, and there are municipalities that had initiated a deconfinement plan but then had to back off due to new outbreaks of the virus.

  How do we guarantee the right to participation of those people who are infected with COVID-19? What alternatives do we have? These are the kind of questions that are being debated by both the public and the relevant authorities who are in a position to respond to these demands.

  Along these lines, alongside various CSOs we are promoting a series of recommendations that address not only the sanitary aspect – so that COVID-19 patients can vote – but also issues such as ensuring access to timely information and citizen capacity development to all those people who have historically been excluded from participation for multiple reasons, including due to not having adequate information channels to receive content, or content not being available in a variety of languages. In this sense, it is important that every effort be made to guarantee the right to participation, not only to those who at this particular time might not be in a position to exercise it for health reasons, but also to those who have historically found themselves in a more vulnerable situation, such as older adults, Indigenous peoples, rural populations, women, LGBTQI+ people and migrants.

  Civic space in Chile is rated as ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Now It’s Our Time to Participate through itswebsite,Instagram or itsFacebook page, and follow@ahrnostoca and@marbrandd on Twitter.

   

• CHILE: “El trabajo doméstico y de cuidados recae abrumadoramente sobre las mujeres”

  CIVICUS conversa acerca del Día Internacional de la Mujer y el rol de la sociedad civil para combatir la desigualdad de género en Chile con Cecilia Ananías Soto, fundadora de Amaranta, una organización de la sociedad civil (OSC) independiente basada en la ciudad chilena de Concepción, en la región del Biobío.

  Amaranta es un espacio feminista conformado por mujeres procedentes de las ciencias sociales, las humanidades y el activismo social con el objetivo de promover la equidad de género y los derechos humanos en los ámbitos de la educación, la salud, la cultura, las tecnologías y los medios de comunicación. Fue fundado a comienzos de 2018 para dar visibilidad y respuesta a los problemas cotidianos de las mujeres, y específicamente de las mujeres lesbianas, bisexuales, trans, trabajadoras, migrantes, desplazadas, pobladoras y originarias. Desde una mirada crítica, local y decolonial, realiza labores de formación, diálogo, investigación e incidencia.

  ¿Qué impactos ha tenido la pandemia de COVID-19 sobre las mujeres y niñas de Chile, y cómo ha respondido a ello la sociedad civil?

  La pandemia afectó diferencial y desproporcionadamente a mujeres y niñas. En el caso de Chile, en el primer año de pandemia hubo un aumento explosivo de las solicitudes de ayuda por violencia de género (VG). Esto ocurrió porque, en medio de las cuarentenas obligatorias, mujeres y niñas quedaban encerradas en sus hogares con sus agresores.

  Además, como durante mucho tiempo no hubo clases presenciales, e incluso permanecieron cerrados los jardines infantiles, el trabajo de cuidar a niños y niñas –como también a familiares enfermos- recayó sobre las mujeres, En muchos casos, éstas debieron abandonar su trabajo y sus estudios para sostener sus hogares. Justo antes la pandemia la participación femenina en el mercado de trabajo había alcanzado su máximo nivel histórico, 53,3%, mientras tras la pandemia cayó al 41%. Llevará bastante tiempo recuperar la participación de las mujeres en la fuerza laboral. 

  Ante este escenario, mujeres y colectivas tendieron redes de apoyo. A nivel vecinal, los grupos de mujeres organizaron ollas comunitarias y ferias de compraventa, entre otras iniciativas. Muchas agrupaciones feministas establecieron líneas de ayuda porque las líneas oficiales no daban abasto o no siempre daban respuesta. Amaranta recibió cientos de solicitudes de ayuda por VG en espacios digitales y, a pesar de ser un equipo pequeño, contribuyó proporcionando contención inicial y comunicando estrategias básicas de autocuidado.

  La pandemia nos obligó a trasladar buena parte de nuestro trabajo al espacio digital. Por un lado, esto nos permitió no dejar de trabajar, hacerlo de manera segura y llegar a muchos más territorios. Pero, por otro lado, no toda la población tiene acceso a internet ni alfabetización digital, por lo que hubo que encontrar otras estrategias. Hoy trabajamos mezclando la educación en género de forma presencial y a distancia con material educativo y activista que entregamos en las calles, como fanzines o publicaciones independientes y stickers.

  ¿Cuáles son los principales asuntos pendientes en materia de derechos de las mujeres en Chile? 

  Un gran problema es que el trabajo doméstico y de cuidados sigue recayendo abrumadoramente sobre las mujeres. Esto tiene profundos efectos sobre la calidad de vida, porque implica que las mujeres ya sea abandonen sus estudios o empleo para realizar esta labor no paga en sus hogares, ya sea intenten convertirse en “multi-mujeres” que deben poder hacerlo todo, aunque ya no puedan más de cansancio.

  Esto quedó en evidencia en un reportaje que sacó Revista Ya a finales de 2020, “Radiografía al hombre cero”, así titulado porque, según el estudio en que se basaba la nota, el 38% de los hombres dedica cero horas semanales a realizar tareas domésticas. Asimismo, el 71% dedica cero horas al acompañamiento de sus hijos e hijas en tareas escolares, y el 57% dedica cero horas al cuidado de niñas y niños. En contraste, las mujeres encuestadas cada semana dedican 14 horas más que los hombres a tareas de cuidado de menores de 14 años.

  Otra gran deuda son los derechos sexuales y reproductivos. Aun no se nos reconoce el derecho de decidir sobre nuestros propios cuerpos. El aborto  está permitido solamente bajo tres causales: peligro para la vida de la persona embarazada, malformaciones fetales incompatibles con la vida, y embarazos resultantes de violación. Al mismo tiempo, no hay programas de educación sexual integral para prevenir embarazos no deseados, enfermedades de transmisión sexual y violencia sexual. Durante la pandemia se documentaron muchas fallas de anticonceptivos hormonales orales, muchos de los cuales eran entregados en forma gratuita en establecimientos de salud; en consecuencia, muchas mujeres de sectores vulnerables acabaron embarazadas, sin poder optar por un aborto y sin recibir ninguna clase de indemnización monetaria.

  ¿Qué habría que hacer para reducir la desigualdad de género en Chile?

  En Amaranta creemos que hay que empezar por una educación no sexista, que incluya educación sexual integral. Solo así dejaremos de repetir estereotipos que perpetúan la desigualdad desde temprana edad. Esto es un factor importante para prevenir la VG.

  También son importantes leyes y políticas públicas que vayan preparando el terreno para una sociedad más equitativa e inclusiva. Desde 2019 Chile atravesó por múltiples protestas sociales, las cuales incluyeron en un sitio muy prominente al movimiento feminista. A raíz de esas protestas, hoy nos encontramos redactando una nueva Constitución que, de ser aprobada, ya sabemos que incluirá sistemas de justicia con perspectiva de género. Se trata de un tremendo avance para nuestro país, e incluso de una novedad en el continente.

  El tema de la campaña del Día Internacional de la Mujer para 2022 es #EliminarLosPrejuicios. ¿Cómo se organizó Amaranta en torno a este tema?

  Nuestra campaña permanente como organización consiste en quebrar sesgos y superar prejuicios y estereotipos. Lo hacemos a través de la educación, la cual puede tomar muchas formas: desde una charla o taller relativamente formal, hasta la recomendación de un libro, la entrega de un fanzine feminista, o la difusión de contenido a través de un video de TikTok.

  En términos de movilización, estamos atentas a todos los llamados de las organizaciones feministas de la zona y participaremos en las convocatorias de mujeres, marchas, bicicleteadas y pañuelazos –es decir, grandes manifestaciones de mujeres con pañuelos verdes– que se organicen.

  El espacio cívico en Chile es calificado como “obstruido” por elCIVICUS Monitor.
  Póngase en contacto con Amaranta a través de susitio web y siga a@AmarantaOng en Twitter.

• CHILE: “Hay un consenso social de que la exclusión arbitraria de las familias diversas es inadmisible”

  CIVICUS conversa con Marco Becerra, director de ACCIONGAY, acerca del proceso conducente a la reciente aprobación de la Ley de Matrimonio Igualitario en Chile. ACCIONGAY es una organización de la sociedad civil fundada en 1987 en respuesta a la epidemia de VIH/SIDA, por entonces ignorada o minimizada como un problema que solo afectaba a “grupos de riesgo”. Con el tiempo amplió su radio de acción en defensa de los derechos de las personas LGBTQI+, sobre la base del principio de que todas las personas tienen derecho a la autodeterminación en relación con sus vidas, cuerpos, salud, relaciones y sexualidad.

  ¿Cómo fue el proceso que culminó en la legalización del matrimonio igualitario en Chile, y qué papel desempeñó ACCIONGAY?

  Fue un proceso largo, de unos 30 años. El movimiento por la diversidad sexual y de género en Chile empezó a surgir a fines de los años ‘80 y principios de los ‘90. Este proceso tuvo distintas etapas. En un principio el trabajo se centró en la consolidación y visibilización del movimiento en un contexto de transición política postdictadura muy desfavorable para las demandas de igualdad de las personas LGBTQI+. En un segundo momento el trabajo se enfocó en la incidencia política con el objetivo de generar un compromiso efectivo de los actores políticos para enfrentar los desafíos relacionados con la inclusión de las personas LGBTQI+.

  Ya hacia fines de la década de los ‘90 se comenzaron a producir algunos cambios importantes, tales como la derogación de la ley que penalizaba las relaciones sexuales entre hombres adultos. Sin embargo, otras demandas -como la del matrimonio igualitario- recién aparecieron en la conversación pública alrededor de 2005, cuando se aprobó el matrimonio igualitario en España. Para entonces ACCIONGAY recibió la visita del activista español Pedro Zerolo, quien nos ayudó a entender la importancia de ampliar el debate respecto de las uniones civiles y el reconocimiento de los derechos de las personas LGBTQI+.

  En un sentido más amplio, me atrevería a firmar que las demandas de igualdad ante la ley fueron el resultado del cambio social y cultural que América Latina experimentaba desde hacía algunos años. La aprobación del matrimonio igualitario en Argentina y en Uruguay, además de su avance en Europa, impulsaron a los movimientos LGBTQI+ y a las organizaciones de la diversidad sexual de Chile a movilizarse en torno de los temas de la igualdad.

  Es importante destacar la contribución de numerosas organizaciones y activistas que trabajaron sostenidamente durante años para generar alianzas con sectores políticos progresistas, los cuales fueron comprometiéndose con estas luchas. La idea de la unión civil se concretó durante el primer gobierno de la presidenta Michelle Bachelet, en 2015, y luego, a medida que fue aumentando la adhesión de la opinión pública junto con la percepción de estas desigualdades como una injusticia, fue tomando más fuerza la igualación de los derechos de familias formadas por personas del mismo sexo.

  El proyecto de Ley de Matrimonio Igualitario fue enviado al Congreso por el segundo gobierno de Bachelet en 2017 y finalmente aprobada en diciembre de 2021. Entrará en vigor en marzo y representará un cambio muy significativo para la vida de cientos de familias homo-lesboparentales que no tenían reconocimiento legal y, por lo tanto, vivían en situación de completa indefensión frente al Estado.

  Las claves para conseguir este avance fueron la coordinación del movimiento, la incidencia con actores políticos y las campañas para concientizar y sensibilizar a la opinión pública.

  ¿Cómo interactuó este proceso con la ola de protestas de 2019 y el subsiguiente proceso constituyente?

  Chile está viviendo un proceso complejo, de cambio de época, como resultado del estallido social de 2019. Pero las exigencias de igualdad y reconocimiento de derechos de las personas de la diversidad sexual y de género son anteriores. Este movimiento ya era muy fuerte antes del estallido social, con un entramado de organizaciones muy activas y movilizadas desde los años ‘90. No obstante, el contexto de movilización social generó un ambiente propicio para la consolidación de un actor político LGBTQI+ reconocible en las calles y en las manifestaciones ciudadanas por más igualdad.

  El cambio social profundo que empezó a ocurrir en Chile recogió las luchas históricas de las organizaciones y movimientos LGBTQI+ que se levantaron en el contexto del estallido social de 2019. En gran medida esto se vio reflejado en la cantidad de personas LGBTQI+ elegidas por medio de procesos eleccionarios, en especial para la Convención encargada de redactar la nueva constitución, así como en la designación de ministros y ministras de las disidencias sexuales en el gabinete del próximo presidente, Gabriel Boric.

  ¿Por qué la aprobación se demoró tanto, si las encuestas mostraban un altísimo grado de apoyo de la opinión pública?

  Si bien en Chile hay una sociedad civil muy activa, el sistema político, pese a que ha cambiado en los últimos tiempos, tenía enclaves muy conservadores. Esto se expresó en la dificultad que tuvo el Congreso para avanzar con esta ley. No menos cierto es que tampoco hubo un compromiso fuerte de los sucesivos presidentes. No obstante, el segundo gobierno de Bachelet incorporó la idea de legislar el matrimonio igualitario. Fue durante su gobierno que se aprobó la Ley de Unión Civil y se envió el proyecto de Ley de Identidad de Género, que se aprobó durante el gobierno del presidente Rafael Piñera.

  Desde el punto de vista de la percepción ciudadana, los cambios ocurrieron porque se alcanzó un consenso social de que la exclusión arbitraria de las familias diversas es inadmisible. El apoyo que recibe el matrimonio igualitario es impactante: casi un 70% de la gente está de acuerdo, y una cifra similar apoya la adopción por parte de parejas del mismo sexo.

  Las campañas por el matrimonio igualitario las desarrollaron principalmente las organizaciones LGBTQI+ con el apoyo de otros movimientos sociales, organizaciones de derechos humanos y feministas, por nombrar a algunos. Paralelamente se generaron alianzas, solidaridades y complicidades, no solo con otras organizaciones sociales sino también con los sectores progresistas de los partidos políticos. El apoyo a la Ley de Matrimonio Igualitario fue bastante transversal, y llegó a incluir a sectores de la centroderecha liberal que aportaron sus votos para hacerla posible. Solo se autoexcluyeron los sectores ultraconservadores.

  En contra de la ley de Matrimonio Igualitario se movilizaron, sobre todo, algunos líderes de las iglesias evangélicas pentecostales que en la actualidad tienen cierta influencia social en Chile, pero fueron derrotadas en el debate parlamentario. La Iglesia Católica en cambio se mantuvo en silencio, probablemente debido a que en los últimos años ha perdido importancia social y política como consecuencia de los escándalos de pedofilia y abusos sexuales a niños, niñas y adolescente cometidos por el clero.

  ¿Cuáles serán los efectos inmediatos de la nueva ley, y qué es lo que queda por hacer?

  Esta ley tendrá consecuencias inmediatas en la medida en que garantizará el goce de todos los derechos y los efectos positivos de la institución del matrimonio independientemente del sexo y orientación sexual de las personas. Como la ley incorpora la adopción y la filiación, resolverá una serie de problemas que experimentan las familias homo-lesboparentales con hijos. Por ejemplo, los padres no biológicos no tenían ningún derecho legal sobre sus hijos de crianza; ahora tendrán reconocimiento legal.

  Chile ha tenido una seguidilla de avances legales: la Ley Antidiscriminación en 2012, la Ley de Unión Civil 2015, la Ley de Identidad de Género en 2018, y a partir de 2022 la Ley de Matrimonio Igualitario. Sin embargo, persisten situaciones de mucha discriminación en los ámbitos laboral y educativo. La violencia contra las comunidades LGBTQI+ es permanente.

  Desde marzo se viene un desafío enorme que va a implicar revisar la agenda de trabajo, sobre todo desde que a partir del 11 de marzo tendremos un gobierno progresista que incorporó en su programa la igualdad y el reconocimiento de las comunidades LGBTQI+. 

  Estamos seguros de que será un gobierno muy diferente de los anteriores, y estamos muy esperanzados de que se podrá comenzar a cerrar la brecha de inclusión real de las personas LGBTQI+ en todos los ámbitos de la vida social, desde las instituciones de la administración pública hasta el ámbito educativo.

  El espacio cívico en Chile es calificado como “obstruido” por elCIVICUS Monitor.
  Póngase en contacto con ACCIONGAY a través de susitio web o su página deFacebook, y siga a@acciongay en Twitter.