SANTIAGO. The process of writing a new constitution is back to zero Chile after a majority of Chilean voters on Sunday rejected the world’s most progressive constitution. 62% rejected the new charter, despite the fact that the need for the country to have a new constitution was recognized two years ago by 80% of voters.

“The decision of the Chilean people requires institutions and leadership to do more work, with more dialogue, respect and understanding, until we come to a proposal that represents us all,” said 36-year-old President Rafael Boric. . “As President of the Republic, I accept the message with humility.”

Chile’s current constitution is a legacy of the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, and the country’s previous conservative president, Sebastian Pinheira, recognized the need to abandon it in the face of a strong wave of social protests in 2019.

The left turn of Chilean society brought Boric to power, who launched the process of electing 152 representatives who wrote a new constitution. Some of the 100 rights enshrined in this constitution, such as the right to public health and education, have received greater recognition than others, such as the rights of indigenous peoples.

The disinformation campaign also determined the outcome in Chile—among other things, it was claimed that the ownership of property would be prohibited.

Based on the rejected constitutional text, Chile was to be recognized as a multi-ethnic state with special rights for 11 indigenous ethnic groups, making up a total of 13% of the population. This provision, as well as its possible impact on the distribution of the country’s mineral resources, turned out to be perhaps the most controversial, and criticism came not only from within, but also from abroad.

The rejected text also contained provisions that strengthened environmental protection and imposed controls on the activities of mining companies, which is extremely important for the world’s largest producer of copper and the second largest producer of lithium. The high rejection rate of the new constitution was fueled by a targeted disinformation campaign that claimed that the constitution forbade the ownership of property and allowed abortions in the ninth month of pregnancy. Confusion also reigned over the possible cost of benefits established by the new constitution. According to one estimate, the constitutionally mandated creation of a welfare state in a country would cost between 9% and 14% of its GDP.

It is expected that some of the articles in the rejected text will be included in the new edition whenever it starts. At the same time, however, it is equally expected that new efforts will be less innovative, so that they are more likely to be accepted by the majority.