Several years ago the lawyer Paulina Veloso (65) left the political front line. During the first government of former President Michelle Bachelet, she was a Segpres minister. She is a member of the Socialist Party, but also a recognized expert in civil law. For years she took classes in that chair at the University of Chile Law School, but now she is focused on her work as an advisor to the State Defense Council, an organization of which she is the president of the civil committee.
in conversation with The Third PM Veloso explains why he will vote Approve in the September plebiscite. “The rule of law is improved and conversations from the past are collected. The way in which everything related to nature and animals is considered is a reflection that we are thinking of a Constitution for our grandchildren, for the future, and I find that exciting,” says the former Secretary of State.
What is your opinion of the regulation that was given to all matters related to indigenous peoples?
Regarding the indigenous issue, in which there is a lot of resistance, in large part we are not innovating much. For example, the ILO Convention 169 ratified by Chile establishes much of the language and form of things that are in the proposed text. And even more importantly, our courts apply Convention 169 a lot. In general, what appears on indigenous peoples is in that treaty and in the Report of the Historical Commission and New Deal with Indigenous Peoples led by President Patricio Aylwin. Despite the reluctance that this generates, I do not find that it is something totally new.
I understand your point, that the proposal includes these conversations that are almost three decades old, but don’t you think that establishing that Chile is a plurinational state is indeed an innovation?
I lived for many years in Switzerland, a country that has different nations in a single State. At least three nations, three languages are recognized, it is a small country and they perfectly live in a unitary State, federal in any case, and with these regions of different origin. The case of Belgium is similar, there are two. In indigenous peoples there are other examples such as New Zealand, Australia, the United States, all have a series of provisions to welcome their original peoples. I see rather that it is the recognition of a certain reality.
Plurinationality also had consequences in the design of the judiciary since legal pluralism was included and the creation of two parallel justice systems united by the Supreme Court. What do you think?
This recognition of certain cultural spheres and custom as a right in native cultures and peoples currently governs, that is, the Supreme Court applies it, there are rulings on that. Nor does it seem as serious to me and it has limitations such as human rights and it falls under the Supreme Court. The rest of the limits will be set by law. It must be borne in mind that the way in which the new text contemplates the Judiciary is a way that reinforces the Judiciary.
In other words, do you think the way the Council of Justice turned out positive? Despite the fact that it does not have a majority of judges in its composition and the eventual risk of politicization?
The idea of creating a council to separate jurisdictional officials from non-jurisdictional officials was supported by the National Association of Magistrates and it was also an agreement of the plenary session of the Supreme Court and that is positive. The composition is an issue that can be revised, in that I am not tied to any conformation. Regarding the appointment of judges, I would say that the starting point is already very political because today the ministers of the Court of Appeals and the judges are appointed mainly by the President of the Republic, who is a political executive body. In other words, it seems to me that if a majority of Congress considers that there is a risk and that two more members of the Judicial Power have to be placed, I do not see any problem.
You are an expert in civil law. From your point of view, how do you see that the right to property was regulated in the proposed new Constitution?
If one looks at the European constitutions, which are the ones I know best, such as Spain, Germany or France, the right to property in Chile is extraordinarily reinforced. In the proposed new Constitution, the right to property is extraordinarily reinforced and protected.
More than in the current Constitution?
In both. The texts on property rights in the Swiss Constitution, in the German, French, Spanish Constitution, any of them is limited. There are countries like Germany where, for example, the price of the expropriation is set by determining the collective interest with the individual interest. Obviously that is less protection than what we have. Here you only look at individual interest, something that seems good to me, I agree. Having placed the property right where it is established that the limitations have to be set by law, that the expropriation has to be justified, that it has to be by law, that compensation has to be paid and that it has to be a fair price, show that the Private property is well protected.
Does the “fair price” guarantee that the owner of an expropriated property will be paid the commercial value of their property?
Of course. I do not have doubt. In addition, the way in which expropriation is carried out has not changed. There is a law on that and the one who defines the price is not the treasury, which is the one that makes the expropriation, but it is a commission of experts. They define an amount and the expropriated person has the right to claim, the claim reaches the courts and there is a significant number of claims that reach the Supreme Court. We have a system that has been around for a long time, that has not been modified and there is no pretense of doing so.
You were a Segpres minister, you know the Executive’s relationship with Congress and the complexities of legislative processing, do you agree with this idea of eliminating the Senate to replace it with the Chamber of Regions?
In the Convention I understand that it cost a lot to reach an agreement on the political system. I would have surely leaned towards the two cameras. Now, that it is decided that a camera is going to have powers more linked to the territory, I do not see it as problematic. What I do see as more problematic is that it was left with quite little difference with the Congress of Deputies in terms of attribution, but they are elected in a way that is not proportional and that worries me much more.
The fact that all regions have the same number of regional representatives…
Yes, that makes noise to me, because with respect to electoral systems there is an international nomenclature, an idea of what proportionality should be and how representative those who reach Congress are. I don’t know if that is the ideal system. Nor do I like that the re-election of the President has been established.
You have reiterated that there are several things that can be checked and fixed. That brings us to constitutional reforms. Is the proposed new Constitution easier or more difficult to reform than the current one?
Not only is it easier, but it also starts from a different starting point. The Constitution of 1980 is archaic and non-democratic, in its origin and in its form. This is a Constitution that starts from a different point. 4/7 are required and if it is an important matter, 2/3 or 4/7 plus a plebiscite are required. I am very radical in the sense that I would even have accepted an absolute majority to reform the Constitution, as in the one of 25. I do not like mechanisms that are so cumbersome, because I believe that they must be given flexibility, but the fact that that a significant amount requires 4/7 and another 2/3, but with the possibility of 4/7 plus plebiscite it is super good.
But the 2/3 take us to the same quorum as the current Constitution for the fundamental chapters.
Yes, but so that we are clear, the criticism that the opposition made before regarding the Constitution of 1980, was not necessarily just the constitutional reform, it was about a set of things. Proposing that this new text, to establish a quorum for constitutional reform that in some matters is 2/3, is a lock like the ones from 80, is a way of looking at things a little tricky. It is not good because it is not comparable.
You said that you are more in favor of flexible constitutions. The introduction of ratifying referendums, don’t you think it’s just the opposite?
That seemed very good to me. I lived in Switzerland and there they hold referendums permanently, they have it organized. It is a practice that should be done much more, communally. People get involved, participate, understand the problem, see the different perspectives. It makes a richer society, a firmer democracy. So one can adjust. That is why I say that we must look at constitutions as living texts that are advancing, changing and improving. That’s what to think about.