Acceso usuarios
Claudio Fuentes Saavedra
En este artículo se discute el argumento desarrollado por George Tsebelis (2018), quien propone un modelo para entender el reemplazo constitucional en Chile. Se sostiene que ese modelo funciona de mejor modo para explicar ciclos de reforma que propiamente de reemplazo. Tal como algunos autores han indicado, se señala que existirían ciertas condiciones políticas exógenas a las normas constitucionales que posibilitarían una transformación sustantiva y son aquellas condiciones las que están ausentes en el caso de Chile. Así, el trabajo de Tsebelis analíticamente nos permitiría modelar el espacio de decisiones en un contexto donde los actores tienen incentivos predefinidos y las reglas del juego son relativamente constantes. Para responder a la pregunta de por qué los actores políticos muestran disposición a cambiar el statu quo en un escenario de “normalidad”, se sugieren tres factores: la percepción de los actores de veto de eventuales costos futuros de mantener el statu quo vigente, el juego de poder Ejecutivo-Legislativo, y la politización de la Constitución en la medida en que cambios en la distribución de poder activan reformas que tocan aspectos cruciales de la misma This article is a response toward George Tsebelis’ argument (2018) concerning the incentives for constitutional replacement in Chile. It suggests that Tsebelis’ model may work better to explain dynamic of constitutional reforms than dynamic of replacement. As some authors have addressed, this article suggests that there are some crucial exogenous conditions of the constitutional-institutional realm that may influence the possibility of replacing a given constitution and such conditions are not present in the case of Chile. Therefore, Tsebelis’ model may help us to analytically explain the space of decision of actors who may have predefined incentives in a context of a “normal” institutional setting. To respond to the question of why some actors are willing to change the statu quo in a context of pre-fixed incentives, this articles suggest three of them: actors’ perception of the future costs of maintaining the statu quo, the game of power between the Executive and the Legislative, and changes in the balance of power triggering the need for change of crucial aspects of the Constitution
This article is a response toward George Tsebelis’ argument (2018) concerning the incentives for constitutional replacement in Chile. It suggests that Tsebelis’ model may work better to explain dynamic of constitutional reforms than dynamic of replacement. As some authors have addressed, this article suggests that there are some crucial exogenous conditions of the constitutional-institutional realm that may influence the possibility of replacing a given constitution and such conditions are not present in the case of Chile. Therefore, Tsebelis’ model may help us to analytically explain the space of decision of actors who may have predefined incentives in a context of a “normal” institu-tional setting. To respond to the question of why some actors are willing to change the statu quo in a context of pre-fixed incentives, this articles suggest three of them: actors’ perception of the future costs of maintaining the statu quo, the game of power between the Executive and the Legislative, and changes in the balance of power triggering the need for change of crucial aspects of the Constitution.
