两极分化民主国家中的精英不合作:制宪推迟、加入公投和智利失败的种子

IF 0.8 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Luis Eugenio García-Huidobro
{"title":"两极分化民主国家中的精英不合作:制宪推迟、加入公投和智利失败的种子","authors":"Luis Eugenio García-Huidobro","doi":"10.1017/s2045381723000321","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article extends the study of the shortcomings of the constitution-making design that contributed to the failure of the Chilean process by addressing a largely overlooked aspect: the 2020 entry referendum. By placing two competing constitution-making models on the ballot, the political elites delegated to the voters a highly conflictual aspect of the process design that prevented cooperation among them. While some political parties approached the disagreements placed on the ballot as an opportunity to reopen discussions already settled by the 2019 Agreement, others interpreted the move as a cancellation of the political insurance contained in the Agreement. This exacerbated the existing polarization among political elites and imperiled prospects for the success of the process.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Elite non-cooperation in polarized democracies: Constitution-making deferral, the entry referendum and the seeds of the Chilean failure\",\"authors\":\"Luis Eugenio García-Huidobro\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s2045381723000321\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article extends the study of the shortcomings of the constitution-making design that contributed to the failure of the Chilean process by addressing a largely overlooked aspect: the 2020 entry referendum. By placing two competing constitution-making models on the ballot, the political elites delegated to the voters a highly conflictual aspect of the process design that prevented cooperation among them. While some political parties approached the disagreements placed on the ballot as an opportunity to reopen discussions already settled by the 2019 Agreement, others interpreted the move as a cancellation of the political insurance contained in the Agreement. This exacerbated the existing polarization among political elites and imperiled prospects for the success of the process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Constitutionalism\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Constitutionalism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381723000321\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Constitutionalism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381723000321","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文通过解决一个在很大程度上被忽视的方面:2020年加入公投,扩展了对导致智利进程失败的制宪设计缺陷的研究。通过将两种相互竞争的制宪模式放在选票上,政治精英们将过程设计中高度冲突的一面委托给了选民,这阻碍了他们之间的合作。虽然一些政党将投票中的分歧视为重新开始2019年协议已经解决的讨论的机会,但其他政党将此举解释为取消协议中包含的政治保险。这加剧了政治精英之间现有的两极分化,并危及这一进程成功的前景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Elite non-cooperation in polarized democracies: Constitution-making deferral, the entry referendum and the seeds of the Chilean failure
Abstract This article extends the study of the shortcomings of the constitution-making design that contributed to the failure of the Chilean process by addressing a largely overlooked aspect: the 2020 entry referendum. By placing two competing constitution-making models on the ballot, the political elites delegated to the voters a highly conflictual aspect of the process design that prevented cooperation among them. While some political parties approached the disagreements placed on the ballot as an opportunity to reopen discussions already settled by the 2019 Agreement, others interpreted the move as a cancellation of the political insurance contained in the Agreement. This exacerbated the existing polarization among political elites and imperiled prospects for the success of the process.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Global Constitutionalism
Global Constitutionalism Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信