Constitutional Changes in Latin America: Political instability or Social Positive change?
Since 1900, all Latin American countries have made drastic changes to their constitutions (Jstor, 2012). The idea of changing the constitution denotes a line of thought that assumes the previous regime was the problem and the only way to improve is to reimagine the government from the ground up. The rhetoric of presenting the new government on a messianic scale is very appealing for incoming Latin American governments, but how long can this be sustained? Where is the line that separates continuity from chaos? Changes in the constitution can create opportunities to bring the people's voices together and create a positive social impact. However, these changes have also proven to be the perfect opportunity for a "strong leader" to become the only voice that matters.
Change is many times a synonym of crisis, and constitutions are more likely to be replaced when political crises are frequent. When the political actors cannot implement change utilizing amendments, the constitution is likely at risk of being modified (Jstor, 2012). As seen in the table above, there is not one Latin American country that has maintained its constitution since gaining its independence. In the early years of a new government, much uncertainty remains, including the question if the new President and their political partners will establish an authoritarian regime or continue with Democracy. This uncertainty inevitably leads to more instability.
A prime historic example of constitutional changes leading to the rise of an authoritarian government is Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Even though Chavez said he would not stay in power if he won the Presidential elections of 1998, he failed to keep this promise and remained in power until his death, which he achieved by changing the nation’s constitution. After winning the elections, Chavez realized that the Venezuelan Constitution prohibited immediate presidential re-election. The Venezuelan constitution was anti-authoritarian (Stanford Law, 2019); therefore, Chavez decided to start a crusade for constitutional change. His actions appeared odd because there was no reason to believe that Venezuela needed a new or modified constitution. Due to rising political pressure and Chavez’s popularity among Venezuelans the Supreme Court doesn’t have another choice than gives its blessing to Chavez to conduct the referendum. He used it to seize power and end the 1961 constitutional democracy (Law Stanford, 2019).
A more contemporary example of Constitutional change is that occurring in Chile. The people of Chile have spoken and decided to change the constitution, in contrast with Venezuela, this is a movement that awakens from the people of Chile and not only one man. After massive protests in 2019, the idea of change was already on the collective mind of the Chilean people (BBC, 2019). Chileans didn't have enough access to pensions, health services, and education. Currently, the private sector plays a huge factor in providing these services, but they are expensive (NPR, 2021). Furthermore, the constitution drawn in Pinochet's era is associated with many issues of inequality in the country. Due to these reasons, the idea of changing the constitution is being regarded as positive. However, it is virtually inevitable that the constant crisis in the region will again lead to having the constitution targeted and amended again. Unfortunately, one cannot yet calculate the unintended consequences of doing such a change.
Another example is the current constitutional changes underway in Peru. Here, the new President Pedro Castillo is also trying to change the constitution. The intended purpose of changing the constitution in Peru is to create a more pluralist and integrative environment for historically marginalized communities. Castillo argues that a change in the constitution would extend more rights to underrepresented communities, such as indigenous communities, Amazonian people, and African descendants. These different marginalized communities have always been targeted by racism and exclusion. Even though the argument to change the constitution is similar to Chile's, it's difficult to agree that social change is the only reason for modifying a constitution. In contrast with the U.S, in Latin America the option of adding regular legislation is skipped by wannabe dictators because it’s an excuse to prolong their time in power, which has become the norm.
Unlike the natural sciences, social science is rarely predictable. History has shown us that constitutional recreations serve authoritarian regimes to keep themselves in office. Only time will tell us if these constitutional changes are positive or not.
Work cited
BBC. (2021, May 17). Chile constitution: Sweeping changes possible as independents win. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-57142087.
Blogs, M. S. L. S. |S. L. S., & Zambrano, D. A. (n.d.). The constitutional path to dictatorship in Venezuela. Stanford Law School. https://law.stanford.edu/2019/03/20/the-constitutional-path-to-dictatorship-in-venezuela/.
Negretto, G. L. (2012, December). Replacing and Amending Constitutions: The Logic of Constitutional Change in Latin America. JSTOR. https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.bucknell.edu/stable/23357911?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=%28%28Why+constitutions+%29+AND+%28in+latin+america%29%29&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fgroup%3Dnone%26q0%3DWhy%2Bconstitutions%2B%26q1%3Din%2Blatin%2Bamerica%26q2%3D%26q3%3D%26q4%3D%26q5%3D%26q6%3D%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26pt%3D%26isbn%3D%26f0%3Dall%26c1%3DAND%26f1%3Dall%26c2%3DAND%26f2%3Dall%26c3%3DAND%26f3%3Dall%26c4%3DAND%26f4%3Dall%26c5%3DAND%26f5%3Dall%26c6%3DAND%26f6%3Dall%26acc%3Don%26la%3D&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A9bdb68ec00c9550a04be8aad4f9229c7&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.
Reeves, P. (2021, May 27). What a new Constitution could mean For chile. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2021/05/27/1000991508/many-in-the-group-writing-chiles-constitution-are-new-to-politics.
