I am far from the nightmares of this Chilean right which demonizes the confused proposals of the maximalist left, imagining that the latter would like to destroy Chile. I do not believe it. But I see a certain left with systemic confusion in their constitutional thematic enthusiasms; well-meaning, but neglecting the effects on the highly complex network of areas of their own development dreams. Societies for their well-being must harmonize as a complex system.

During my trip to Shanghai, I draw the skyscrapers of private investors on Chinese state land. A very complex model of society that makes it possible to highlight beautiful buildings by removing them like sculptures because it uses the state domain in a way that liberal trade would not reach. But it is supported authoritatively because the single party controls all aspects of social and personal life, with this iron rule of imperial China of always, without equality, without democracy or freedom and with a lot of poverty. I know that no one in Chile imagines such a thing, but every time I think of a different model of society, I think of the difficulty of harmonizing ours, with our history and our current demands, in the constitutional debate.

The original subjectivity of the Chilean “social unleashing”, of the just anger against the past, rests on objective diagnoses which have consolidated a social “climate” deceived to the point of
to the point of breaking up the complexity of the founding bases required by a New Constitution. Thematic particularism, which is maximized in constitutional proposals, hinders harmonious design. This is encouraged, without measure, by those who continue to believe in the magic wand of “sharpening contradictions”, repeating diagnoses which do not constitute remedies even if they repeat them.
remedies, no matter how much they repeat them.

Only an interacting system of ideas would allow a development strategy, ideologies and political programs that democracy will choose. To do things right, you don’t need more biological age, but more political maturity.

An objectified subjectivity, like an atmosphere of passion for change, overabundant idolized constitutional proposals disjointed from a harmonious project; they do not achieve constitutional coherence and even less for future laws and decisions that satisfy just aspirations.

The serious thing is that the exacerbated expectations of an illusory rhetoric, installed in the debate and in the constitutional letter, could lead to a constitutional celebration of its creators and to the frustration of society and especially of those who have the least.