 Okay, everyone. Welcome to what the app is going on in Latin America and the Caribbean, Coating's weekly YouTube program of hot news out of the region. In partnership with Common Frontiers, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Friends of Latin America, Massachusetts Peace Action and Task Force on the Americas, we broadcast weekly at 4.30 p.m. Pacific, 7.30 p.m. Eastern on Coating's YouTube channel. You can also find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Telegram, and now on RadIndyMedia.com. Today's episode deconstructing the September 4th Levisite in Chile. I want to introduce all of you to our two guests and then give you a brief background before we get into our analysis of what happened in Chile on Sunday the 4th. So first, I'd like all of you to meet Patricio Zamorano. He is the co-director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, also known as COHA, COHA, is a broadcast partner of this program. So we're really happy to have Patricio join us as a guest, Chilean-born guest who lives in Washington, DC, but also as co-director of one of our broadcast partners. Patricio did vote at the Chilean Embassy on Wednesday on Sunday, and he was also an election observer Sunday before. And then joining us live from Chile this evening is Javier Amanzi, and she is an activist with Co-Ordinadora Feminista Ocho Eme, an English coordinator, Feminismau, 8am. So welcome both of you. What an honor to have you both joining us in conversation today. I'm really excited about what we're going to kind of deconstruct for our audience. Let me give the audience a brief background. On Sunday, September 4, Chileans overwhelmingly voted against a proposed new constitution, rejecting what would have been one of the world's most progressive charters. While nearly 80 percent of Chileans voted to draft a new constitution in 2020, nearly 62 percent of voters rejected the new text, with 99.7 percent of the ballot boxes counted and think that was as of yesterday. President Gabriel Boric, whose government is largely tied to the new text, said cabinet changes were coming and the government would work to draft another constitution. The proposed text that voters rejected was a response to widespread violent protests that gripped the nation in late 2019. And some of you may remember Patricia joined us in 2019 to talk about what was happening on the ground in Chile, what those national protests were about. And I will share with all of you the link just as so you can take a look at that as a reminder. Gives you some good background as to what we're going to talk about today. So those were the late 2019, excuse me, which focused on social rights, the environment, gender parity and indigenous rights, a sharp shift from what, from the prior constitution's market friendly context that was drafted during the Pinochet dictatorship. So Javier and Patricio, let's talk about what happened on Sunday and what was in the constitution that people rejected, why they rejected it and also what was the environment. I guess maybe that's even the bigger comment we should open with the media environment and the political and social environment that created the failure of this new constitution to pass. Who wants to jump in? I think Javier should be the first one because she was there in Chile. So please, Javier, go ahead. Yes, good afternoon everyone. It is, I must say, very difficult to talk on Chile these days. Being part of a cycle of social mobilizations that, of course, has inspired the world and most progressive grassroots and the left, I guess, from other places. So, of course, it's our responsibility to think, to really think what just happened in Chile. Because, of course, this was not, we didn't expect this result, not only because we lost in terms of that, between the rejection and the approval, but mainly because of the extent of these results. In the first place, I would like to say that, whereas it's very important to create a question now. What happened? Okay, the rejection won in all the regions of our country. In the vast majority of them, by more than 60%, the approval won only in eight districts in the regions of Valparaiso and Santiago. So we must ask now, what did the people actually reject in this election? What did the people reject when they voted rejection? What was this election about? What was at stake? And the answer is not big. It will require taking a lot of and capturing the sensibility of sectors that have never expressed themselves in the vote. Since 2012, in Chile, we have voluntary vote. This is the first time since then that we had a mandatory vote. We changed, we changed, of course, everything and how the behavior, the electoral behavior of our society. We were part of the command of the team of social movements for the campaign of the approval. And the very same day, the night of the first of this, of September, we made our first declaration where we said that this was an electoral defeat, but not the defeat of a project. Not the defeat of what was at stake in this very moment, which is, of course, the destiny of a cycle of mobilizations that started in October of 2019 and that today we had, as a result, this constituent process. For us, it's very important to understand this because, of course, the right, the far right that is now being very, that tries to interpret this result as the idea that Chile is a conservative country or as the idea that this is the defeat of a project, that the people knew the content of this draft of a new constitution. That's not real. So it's very important to say in the first place that what is at stake in this election is a new form that was first an election that had new rules because for the first time, more than 10 years, people went to vote because it was a mandatory vote. The second place, it's important to say that because of that, 85% of the Chilean people who could vote voted, which is the election with the most popular participation in the history of Chile. This is very important, of course. In the third place, it is important to say, too, that people did not know the content of this new constitution. People did not vote with information. This was not an election that people could vote with all the information needed. And in the first place, we must talk about the absolute inequality of the four of these elections, of how we did the campaign in this election, and the important role of social media and social networks in this process. Of course, in the States, you know a lot about this and we have to talk about this because it's important to understand contemporary democracies and what happened in Chile has a lot to do with the absolute control in Chile of the social media and social networks. Wow, I find this is fascinating to me. And maybe I guess the thing that jumps out the most is, well, you mentioned new rules, 85% voted, it was mandatory voting. How do we explain voting without full information? Was that tied with the social media dissemination or how did that happen? I can start answering that, maybe Patricia also has something from his experience, but in a very, I must say first, that this is a process that took a very little time to write a new constitution. Actually, it's one of the most, one of the shortest process in the history of constituent processes in the world because we had just one year. And in the second place, in a country that doesn't have a lot of civic or political education, actually, that's one of the cause of the heritage of the dictatorship in Chile. And so that's very important as well. But I would say that the role of fake news and we've been and that's a lot of something that has been during these days being put to the front in the analysis. And this idea that the people voted thinking that they were voting for something thinking that they were voting against the idea that their houses would be that they would lose their houses. That was a very widespread idea in the population. The idea that there was going to be different forms of justice that indigenous people would have privileges. The idea that there was that people would could abort with nine months. The idea that they will lose the national symbols were going to be changed, that the flag was going to change, etc., etc. Those are some of the main issues. Just like that. Some of the main reasons why people voted rejection. None of them were part of the content of the new constitution. And they were highly widespread throughout social media and throughout social networks, throughout WhatsApp, throughout Facebook, throughout Instagram, throughout TikTok, through YouTube. So we must talk about this because it's very similar to what happened in the referendum in Colombia, to what happened possibly in the Brexit, to what has happened in Brazil with the first election for Sonata. And of course with Trump. So this is just another example of the extent of the intervention of this in democracies. Patricia, what was your sense being in Washington DC on Sunday the 4th? Sure, sure. Thank you so much, Terry, for the opportunity always. Sure, I mean, I have a view that is inspired by studying the historic process of Chile for a long time from a political science point of view and also my experience here in Washington DC and everything that transpired there in Chile for the last three or four years. Of course, I haven't been there personally, but I have been in the country several times, but not leaving there day by day, which is a different approach for sure. What I can tell you though, yes, in fact, the media concentration is in Chile is critical. We have a few owners of most of the media and they tend to be conservative. There's no doubt that because they were imperfections. We have imperfections in the way that the Constitutional Assembly work is true. As Javier is saying that it's really it was very aggressive to write a complex text in less than a year. That that was challenging. That was a mistake. We know that for sure. The at the end of the process, the text was delivered in a rush. We have a huge text, 388 articles, 50,000 words. Very difficult to defend as an entire body of knowledge, right? 50,000 words. How do you defend that? Every single aspect. The National Assembly, the Constitutional Assembly tried to do a lot. Tried to put everything on that plate. The contradictions inside the National Assembly, the Constitutional Assembly were exploited. Exploited heavily by the right media conglomerates. There's no doubt about that. There were contradictions. There were discussions. There were even ridiculous things. We have to admit that that the unfortunately we have certain characters within the Constitutional Assembly that were just just silly, funny anecdotes of people voting from a shower. Things that it doesn't matter. But when you have a polarized society like Chile, and when you have huge interest, very interesting in boycotting any progress, of course, you are going to use all these little little little stupid details to create a sense of failure. So if you see the polls and the polls are in this time, I think they were very close to the final to the final results. If you analyze the polls and surveys before the referendum, you will notice that people were in opposition of the work of the Constitutional Assembly without knowing the actual text. They didn't know the actual product of a year of work, and they were opposed 60% to 30%. Basically, 60% approving the work, disapproving the work, and only 30% approving it. The other thing also is the fact that we don't have to get confused. This is resolved against a whole body of text, but it's not against most of the content because eight out of 10 people in Chile want a new Constitution. They don't like the dictatorship of the Constitution. They want a new Constitution. So unfortunately, this isolated factor creating this sense of failure. And I have to say sadly, I have to be very honest in the analysis because it is there is some conservative vibe in Chile in the fact that one of the major oppositions measured by the polls and confirmed by the election is that people got very, very afraid of the indigenous autonomy. They didn't like the concept of of a plural national identity. They didn't like it. Chileans didn't like it. Even though those rights don't affect them. I mean, when you have rights for communities, when you have human rights, civil rights that are going to help our fellow community, we progressive people believe on those rights, right? If those rights are going to help the, especially a minority, we celebrate that. If gay people want to get married, we celebrate that right. Conservative people don't celebrate that right. They don't believe that is correct, even though gay marriage or same sex marriage doesn't affect them. The same thing with indigenous population in our countries that have been affected strongly by the state with violence from the state, with legal tools, a lot of issues. And then the Chilean society, 60%, didn't agree with that. They didn't want the indigenous people to have such autonomy because in fact, a new justice system was going to be created just for them, which was awesome because they need that. But then for the new constitution, I'm sure that that's going to be one of the factors that the new writers of the new constitution are going to consider, unfortunately. And the Cabrera story right, in opposing certain specific little things, we are affecting so many strong rights for women, for so many things. So hopefully we will learn from this process. So this kind of, you know, your comment about basically negating a plurie national country is, Javier, you mentioned that as well. And I mean, I guess what we could say it's racism. In a sense, fear, race, a fear based out of race. So how much does some of the population vote? Javier, you mentioned the social media and clearly the no vote was controlling the narrative through social media. And there is something for all of us on the left of center to learn about that. And in all organizations that we work with and how to up that game, the narration that we project. But how much, when I guess this is a question really for both of you, how much of the rejection was based on domestic narrative and or fear of what is happening in some of the neighboring countries, perceived fear. I mean, you say plurie national, clearly I'm thinking Bolivia. And then Columbia also was also interesting how, you know, their peace referendum went. How much of this is really, it's almost like the Constitution maybe is ahead of where the country is culturally. People want certain things, but not it's going to take like an evolution to get there. And I'm reading in the media that the president's going to try again with when the complexion of Congress changes and how realistic is that? Yes, I would like to say some, a lot of things first. It's a lot more complex, in my opinion, just to talk about an idea of how conservative the society in Chile is and how racist it is. But of course, these are two major concerns. You must understand that Chile, the idea of an neoliberal subjectivity is a very wide, it's absolutely a demonic in Chile. And that of course has a lot to do with the heritage of the dictatorship and how that has been deepened throughout these more than 30 years of transition. But also it's important because for instance, in some of the districts with a major population of indigenous people, of Mapuche people, they voted rejection. Like in most, actually, the some of the regions of the country with the most percentage of rejection was actually where there is a major population of indigenous people. So what one would say, what happened here? Yes, and it's more complex than just talking about internalized racism. But of course, also part of that. That's not only that. This election, we must say to that this idea, it's very difficult to analyze this election, trying to compare it with the elections before. Why? Because to be honest, this is one of a very important facts. The approval didn't change a lot. Okay. From the total amount of people that voted approval in the first referendum to start the constituent process, this 80 percent of people didn't change as much towards the total amount of people in this last election. It changed. It changed one million people. This is one million people less in the approval of the first referendum than the approval of this late referendum. But the rejection, instead, they grew six million people, six. And this is mainly people that had not voted before. Okay. And this is mainly people of the poorest sectors of our country. See? So then these people were the ones that had only access to the process throughout mainly social media and mainly social networks. And this is people that had not voted since 2012, probably. This is people for whom this idea of a mandatory vote, of course, had an impact in their electoral behavior. And of course, they reacted to this vote in different motifs, you see? So we have to understand what was there. Was it actually against plurinationality? Definitely, there's a part of that. See? But was it all because of that? There's also people who voted against the government, because they thought that constituent process and government were the same. So they were voting against the government. There are also others who voted against the system. So then rejection was just a vote against politics, against this idea of democracy. There was also a vote, a very conservative vote, of course, that's actually the same that voted for cast in the last election. But that's just part of it. So it's a very diverse and heterogeneous sector of people, the one who voted rejection. So it's very important to understand. And yes, I must say that there's a part of it. There is a very, I would say, consolidated conservative vote, definitely. And this is just part of it. There's also a very, part of it was people who voted with not enough information and just reacting to what was in the media, which is actually a very racist approach to the content of the constitution, where this idea of internationality was presented as this idea of the division of the country, which was never it. And there's also a part of these voters who were probably enthusiastic about the idea of a new constitution, but they were not enthusiastic about the content of this case. I would say that's actually, to be honest, a very the smallest margin of voters. This idea of the census. So then I'm just saying it's a very interesting and very complex idea of how to understand this, but it's important to say that the 38% of people who voted approval this time is actually very similar to the ones who voted for voting and the ones who voted for the approval in the sector. That has not changed as much as it seems just by seeing the percentages. Wow. I mean, this is really fascinating. I guess, can we conclude that the Chilean population still wants a new constitution? That is true, yes. People still want a new constitution. And I will say on a very personal level, when I heard the 388 sections, chapters, and 50,000 words, this is a huge constitution. And I think here in the United States of my own country, a lot of people, regardless of their political philosophy, would say, wow, that's a huge document that's going to control every aspect of my life. Just the size of it, that it's almost too much. Too much in it? Is that a fair thing to say that people may have rejected that, that it was maybe tried to maybe go too far? I don't want to say too far, because that would infer something different. But to cover too much, yes. Yeah, all at once. Yes. Because we have to remember also, I think, there in the analysis, we had a huge need in Chile. A huge need, a historic need for restoration of humanity. The life in Chile is hard. It's for 20 years more, 20 years after the dictatorship. But during the dictatorship, we had that almost 30 to 40 years of neoliberal policies that were hard on people. A lot of poverty in Chile is stopped in the world in terms of inequality. Rich people in Chile are very rich, poor people are very poor, we have extremes. The lack of security for work, the lack of security for health, because the health system was privatized by the dictatorship, the educational system was privatized by the dictatorship, the pension system was privatized by the dictatorship. So there's so many things that make life in Chile so hard. So you can understand then the deputies who were in charge of writing this constitution in a desperate effort to include everything to solve the Chilean issue. And the Chilean issue is complex. Deep is the interest of the big financial actors is incredible. They have so much money and the media control. So yeah, we had all that. All that Javier was actually explaining on top of the difficulty of trying to transfer the message, especially to, it was very interesting what Javier just said that based on the data, these six million new votes. Yes, I mean mathematically a big percentage of those were working families, working workers, low-income workers that actually were going to be very benefited by this constitution because this constitution returns the obligation of the state to be in charge of health, to provide education for everyone, et cetera, et cetera. So rights for women, rights for so many sectors of the country that don't have a voice. So it is a good content. It is good content. But in fact, there was a failure in transferring that message in a very successful and positive way. It was very negative. It was always negative for six months. It was always negative, unfortunately, and the positive aspect of everything that the new constitution entitles was really destroyed like a six months ago. There's no doubt about that. Well, it's disappointing. I mean, it's disappointing to a lot of us in the atmosphere. We're so hopeful to see that penerche, that neoliberal constitution just completely go away. And it's got to be even more disappointing for those of you who are citizens of Chile. What's next? What's the next step that president's going to have a new Congress or not a fully new, but the complexion of Congress is getting ready to change, presumably with with more members that are supportive of him and the constitution. Does the count does a this goes into a redraft now, correct? It doesn't go away. It's not like over and done with, which I think some people believe outside of Chile. It goes and it gets rewritten. Is that correct, Javier? And we and you try again. Well, it's a very open scenario in this precise moment. I would like to say about what you asked before that it's a very interesting idea, this of the length or what of the content, what it should talk about constitution. There are these like, mainly these two this idea that a constitution should be minimum. Yes, this is a very liberal idea of a constitution. And there were others among them ourselves that thought that this constitution, of course, had to answer and to be a response to not only to social demands, but to the transformation of institutional of this institutionality in Chile, precisely to open a possible change of the structures of neoliberal of neoliberalism. And because as you must know, the constitution of 1980 is precisely written to respond to the need of the neoliberal choc, the Chicago boys instruction in Chile. So I would I must say and I will affirm what I say, Patricia, that this was a content. And of course, it's been known as a very progressive craft. And of course, it was. And it talked about a lot of things. And it had mainly three main concerns was to deepen democracy to build new tools for a more open democracy. It also in terms of social rights. It had talked about a lot of what today it's been our experience is of the absolute privatization of social rights. And it also had a major breakthrough in terms of the feminist environmental and indigenous agenda of change. So for us as feminists, we recognize in this content are in a way a program for us for the future. And we will fight precisely because we know that this content is has been a lot has at least this the middle of people who voted for it. But not only that, it was a very important process of social and political articulation of a possible alternative that we constructed for this year. So that's very important in terms of what we're going to push in the future in this and actually in this possible future constituent process. In this very moment, they must say that the right made a campaign where they actually told people to all the population of Chile that they were going to push another constituent process. That was what they said in their campaign. They said let's do another one, a better one, one that actually responds to your needs. And they talked like that because they knew that there was this main, this widespread idea, this common sense idea today that we need a new constitution. So instead of saying we don't need one, they said we need another one, not this one. But today, we've seen how the right party, the right wing parties have hesitate on this idea. And they're now saying that they won't necessarily be part of this process. So then we are seeing like in a very fast and accelerated moment of decisions, the negotiations between these different parties and there's no actual, there's no definite response, no definite answer to this question. We hope, of course we hope that we're going to have another constituent process. But to be honest, it's very difficult. It's very difficult that this is going to be real. Because today we're seeing not only the right, the far right that has today a very, they're trying to use this moment as their moment. And they're saying that they're not going to join any process, but also the right, the most centrist right that it has their own doubts about it. So it's very uncertain if we are actually going to have, and there's even though the government and the president said that we should, and of course the left and centrist parties are saying that we should, we don't necessarily have the amount of votes in the Congress to actually put that into action. Yes, it's just to compliment that what Javier said, none of the right and the center left, none of those sectors having no votes to impose anything. So, and I think the society right now in Chile is a little exhausted on the process. Remember, we have entry referendum first. Do you want a new constitution that was won 80% or 79% approval for a new constitution? Then we had to elect the constitutional assembly. That was a whole process, very complex to elect those 154 deputies that took a lot of energy, a lot of political capital from a lot of people and sectors and and political parties, a lot of synergy was lost there. And now we have a situation and then we have a new referendum again. The situation in the country, we have to get to contextualize it. Boris is not in the best shape possible. We have a huge inflation exactly like here, although in the US is improving, but Chile is still under the influence of COVID and all those issues. We have a security issue in Chile as well, unfortunately. That's another factor that could explain some of the votes Javier out of the 6 million working families suffering the criminality, although in Chile it's always about perception because the actual numbers are not that bad. You compare Chile with Colombia or Brazil, but still the perception of Chile in terms of insecurity is overstated all the time. It's not underestimated, it's the opposite. People believe that the situation is horrible. And the constitution had some new roles for security forces, eliminated certain rights of the state to exercise aggressive measurements against the population in cases of emergency. Some of those previous rights of the states were diminished. So I can imagine part of the population say, this new constitution is going to make Chile unsafe. I can totally understand that and the right exploded that big time. So the situation as Javier is describing it is very close. We have no idea. Boris is trying to negotiate right now immediately. They are saying that by this week they were saying, by September 11 maybe we're going to come out with a solution. It's a scenario that maybe again a group of experts will write the new constitution. That's another possibility. Another possibility is Congress can try to write the constitution. The problem with the temporary law that authorized this whole thing, nobody really thought that the new constitution was going to be rejected. So we don't have a plan B in terms of the institutional framework of the country. And that's bad. Nobody expected this like this. Because of course you have eight out of nine Chileans want any constitution. And a lot of people like me thought, well, it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. And nobody wants the dictatorship constitution to prevail. Well, we were wrong. We were wrong. Simple as that. And so this is the flavor of democracy as well. Unfortunately, right? It hurts. It hurts for humanity, for humanism, for human rights. It hurts. But remember that the peace accord was rejected in Colombia the first time as well. And that was horrible. But then the country was capable of rebuilding the energy and relaunch a process that was at the end not perfect, but better. So in this case, we need to hear these results carefully. And the new people, whoever it is who is going to write this new constitution, of course, it's going to be a different one. Hopefully, because the values are there, people want a better environment, people want more rights, people want a state-sponsored health system, people want a state-sponsored education, people are tired of the pension of the pension structure. So I cannot imagine a new constitution without doing that because even the right winners, they know that if they don't do this, they don't fix this, the streets are going to be violent again, and business will be affected. And they don't want their packets to be affected. So they don't want more violence in the streets. So that's the hope that at the end of the day, we need a new constitution. Well, the majority of the population initially did want a new constitution. You know, I think for me personally listening to both of you in this conversation, my biggest takeaway, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Javier and you were maybe a little more overt about it, but both of you implied it, this is really a learning process. I mean, a real, real, and I think this is important for all of us who are activists and work in politics and social movements, etc. You know, like you said, Patricia really expected the outcome. You know, there was such high hopes that the outcome was going to be completely different than what it was on Sunday. And yet it is really an opportunity to look at, and Javier, you are great at the four points you mentioned opening the program. The real, you know, what do we do wrong? What do we need to do better? But also looking, you know, at the people. What are the people really want? And how do you articulate that to make sure their success next time around? I mean, it's a real learning process. And I mean, it's disappointing, but it's also okay. It's also okay to learn what needs about, I guess in general, I would say about ourselves in any of the work that we do. But for Chile, there's a lot that maybe some hopes had already, the country had already evolved, maybe quite hasn't met. And the narratives, the narratives, the educational process and the media narrative, particularly the social media, this huge, this huge everywhere, everywhere across the planet right now. And my biggest comment would be looking at the United States and what's happening, you know, in Europe right now, between Russia and Ukraine, it's such a one narrative only, and the impact that that has on an ancient people. So how should we close? Let's close on a hopeful note, please. What's next? What can we do as activists supporting the Chilean people and promoting a non neoliberal model or at least a softer form of capitalism as we evolve to something more progressive? What can we do as activists? What would you like to see us do, Javier? Yes, I'd say that this is of course a moment where we must have an accurate analysis of what has just happened. It's important because if not, we're going to do fast answers to something that is actually just as Patricia said, we didn't expect. So it's hard because it's difficult to see the results. It's very hard to see and to recognize that most of the people that voted rejection are actually the people with the less incomes in our country are working class people who were never in courage to vote throughout the last elections. And then when they decided to, they didn't decide to go, they were forced to go. And when they do, this is how they respond to it. So for us, if we are from a social movement as a feminist, as a leftist activist, of course, it's a very important thing to question ourselves. What is our capacity to construct majorities, social majorities, and that our alternatives, our projects respond to the need and make sense to the working class. And that's, I guess, the main question we have to do to ourselves. But at the same time, I must say, we cannot be naive or ingenious about, we cannot try to, only this, this is a very critical idea of our, of the extent of our politics and the extent of how we are actually making an impact. But at the same time, we must see the effect. And this is important, I guess, for all the, for all the democracies and the next elections throughout the world. I'm thinking, of course, of Brazil, how we understand the impact of the control of social media and how we the impact of the narratives of these hegemonic narratives and how we understand the impact social networks in our daily basis and debates and how the communication of everything that we're what we're trying to transform and has to have a very massive communication, communication, and politics, how we understand that. Because if not, we're going to make very progressive and transformative projects that have no capacity to make a mass transformation or make actually the majorities we need to make them happen. So I'm thinking that it's a very important thing to understand, I guess, for the contemporary democracies throughout the world. And at the same time, it's a very difficult and critical moment to do so because we are, of course, living in a global crisis and the recession after the pandemic. And in a moment, then that, of course, the far right and fascist movement to be very accurate. And I'm going to call it like that. They're doing and they're actually getting bigger and bigger throughout these same places. So then I would just say we must all analyze and try to understand and try to come to make new tools and make and have a communicative communicational politics. If we want to win the next time. Tricia, do you have any closing comments? Sure. Yes, I think what we can do, everybody, everybody that is outside of Chile and also inside Chile, is just to understand these results as a very particular specific partial result about a moment on this giant photography that is a new constitution. This was not unfortunately a referendum by chapters. It could have been maybe better to divide these 388 articles, I don't know, in 10 critical and fundamental chapters of this new institutional framework and maybe and separate every single one. And maybe these situations would have been different, right? We would have that capacity of reading the will of the people in a better way. Maybe seven out of 10 articles, major chapters were going to be accepted, right? And only three of them rejected. And then the situation would have been better. We also understand the situation of making the boat mandatory. It had to be done because it's the constitution. It is the constitution. And even though we added new boats, new people that maybe never voted, that was exactly the intention. So nobody can complain that they didn't participate in such a fundamental thing. And that's because it's a bad cost. But we had to do it. So I think it's good. At the end of the day, it's good that these six million people that never mobilized or didn't care about anything, they cared. I agree, though, the analysis is very clear. They voted against something that was very good for them. No doubt about that. So you have a disconnection. We have a disconnection of message that is serious. How is that possible? Because of the media owned by the right, because of the social media, because of the dirty campaigns, we are very familiar with all that. So we just need to make sure that people understand that people still want a new constitution. People still reject the Pinochet constitution. Majority of the country. That 80% still stands. So that's the positive note. We have the need. We have strong needs that needs to be covered. So we believe that the mobilization is going to start again. It's going to take time. And yeah, we have the hope that the needs are bigger than this outcome. And those needs are going to push for change. I believe in social, historic movements. We have seen it so many times. The same election of Boris was impressive. I mean, he created a new party in 2018. Very tiny. And three, four years later, he's the president of Chile, one of the youngest one. That was a surprise as well. Agenda came to power against a huge, a huge group of interests against any social movements. For 70 years, no lefty president was even close to be in power. Agenda did it. And of course, that's why he was destroyed. It was just too much, maybe for that time. He was so advanced to his time. Chavez was in jail. And five years later, he was the president of a huge movement that still is influencing so many countries. Fidel was in those mountains with he, only 12 or 13 people survived a first attempt to make Cuba independent. And three years later, the revolution had a huge victory. And still, there, 50, 60 years later. So this, when the social movement is strong enough, nothing can stop it. So in this case, I think this is just a pause in a long process because Chile, Chile needs answers. And those answers are coming sooner or later. Well, let's leave it at that hopeful note. And again, this comes up every episode we touch on social movements and the power lap at me because I'm a child of the 60s here in San Francisco, power of the people. But those social movements are so critical to change the power of that. And so I want to thank both of you for joining us for this episode. Patricio Zamorano from Washington, D.C., with the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Javier Amanzi, joining us live from Chile today. I'm so thankful for your time and your brilliant analysis of Sunday the Fourth and very educational conversation for myself and for our audience. So I hope that you can both join us again as we watch the evolution, what comes next. It's going to be really important for all of us to stay in solidarity with Chile and people like you, Javier, are on the ground in the feminist movement and many others. And we'll watch what comes next. Again, I'm so thankful for your time. And I just want to remind our audience that you've been listening to what the F is going on in Latin America and the Caribbean, Code Pink's weekly YouTube program, hot news out of the region. We broadcast every week, 4.30 p.m. Pacific, 7.30 p.m. Eastern. You can also find us on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. And be sure to catch Code Pink Radio every Thursday morning, excuse me, Thursday morning, 11 a.m. Eastern broadcasting on WPFW out of Washington, D.C., and WBAI out of New York City. And Code Pink Radio can also be found on Apple Podcasts. So everyone, we'll see you next week. Thank you for joining us. And thank you again, Patricia and Javier, a wonderful conversation. Really appreciate your analysis. Bye. Have a good night. Bye-bye. Good night.