The third meeting of the “Chile-European Union Round Table” webinar cycle on State Forms and Government Systems addressed key issues in the Chilean constituent process, including decentralisation and the presidential versus parliamentary system.
Foto: Fuland
On 15 and 16 May 2021, the same days that the constituent body that will draft the new Chilean constitution is elected, regional governors will also be elected for the first time, a hugely significant symbol in a transitional process from a “unitary” State to a “regional” State, opening up various possible forms of state and government.
To nurture this reflection, foster this dialogue and share experiences, the European Union Delegation in Chile, the Chamber of Deputies of Chile, the Chilean Agency for International Cooperation-AGCID and the Library of the National Congress held two sessions to share experiences on “Forms of State and Government Systems” with the support of the EUROsociAL+ programme. This series of webinars is part of the “Chile-European Union Forum” within the framework of the constituent process, with which the aim is to share both experiences of the constitutional process and essential content such as social cohesion, access to a welfare system and guaranteed fundamental rights, showing the lessons learnt from European Constitutions and their diversity.
For the deputy Jaime Mulet Martínez, who participated in the opening of the first session, the form adopted by the State and the attributions that are passed to each of the regions represent “a great discussion”. “Our party is discussing whether to promote a federal or regional state, with the aim being a decentralised unitary state. It is a discussion that is far from over, one which requires us to make decisions at this constitutional convention. For this reason, encounters like these help us to further, understand and discuss [the issues]”, he said.
The first session on 27 April which looked at Territorial Decentralisation was attended by Roberto Romboli, Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Pisa, Italy. He said that it was impossible to identify, in experiences of comparative law, an ideal model of decentralisation “since the efficacy of a model derives from the political, geographical and cultural characteristics of a country. A real model cannot be derived from just reading the constitution and the laws that are enacted because, in the European experience, “its practical application has come from interventions and interpretations of the constitutional courts.”
In his opinion, in the current phase in Europe known as “cooperative regionalism”, connection and coordination acquires a pre-eminent character with respect to the need to guarantee the separation of competences. “The development of the welfare state implies that most public policies require collaboration between the different levels of territorial government, almost integration, so that the activity of one is strongly conditioned by that of the other without even being able to clearly distinguish where the responsibility of one and the other lie.”
Fernando Rey, professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Valladolid (Spain), agreed with Romboli that there is no ideal solution “because decentralisation not only makes sense, but comes from the heart. Furthermore, we are now in the paradigm of diversity and it should be noted that a decentralised state is not less but more state.”
Julieta Suárez-Cao, a Doctor of Political Science from Northwestern University and associate professor at the Institute of Political Science of the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile laid out the dichotomy between theory and practice. “If we put theory aside and see how Chile has in recent years managed such significant crises as its social upheaval and COVID-19, we see that regardless of what theory actually tells us about how a unitary and centralised State should function, in reality, it has not been like this. We can see this through very clear indicators such as the ever more important role played by mayors, who are closer to the territory and have a greater idea regarding the implementation of public policies that are needed in their area”. In her opinion, “in the face of the existing crisis of representation and participation, decentralisation is the obvious path for Chile’s constitution to follow, ensuring there is a de-concentration of power and that people can participate in decision-making from the lowest levels of government at the regional level.”
In the second session, the form of government established by the new Constitution was debated. Congressman Carlos Abel Jarpa, who opened the session, emphasised that although the Chilean Constitution has undergone modifications, these have not been sufficient for the political, social and economic changes that have taken place. “Our institutional framework must be in accordance with the needs of the people and these change over time. If the constitutions are not adapted, they perish”, he said.
As the experts pointed out, there seems to be general agreement on the limitations of the presidential model, especially in its most extreme variants in general, and in the case of the Chilean model in particular. If the tendency in Latin America is to turn presidential systems into “parliamentary systems”, there is also a tendency in Europe, where the general rule is to turn the parliamentary system into a “presidential system”. As a result, various countries of the European Union have adopted semi-presidential forms of government. In this session, two such models – the French and Portuguese – were addressed by Hubert Alcaraz, Professor of Public Law at the University of Pau and Adour (France) and Diogo Feio, attendee Professor of Public Law from the University of Porto-CIJE (Portugal). Also taking part were Chilean experts Pamela Figueroa, doctor in American Studies and an academic from the Faculty of Humanities of the University of Santiago de Chile and Francisco Zúñiga, professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chile.
