Image Source: http://www.diarioeldia.cl/region/actriz-ovallina-captura-marcha-mas-grande-chile-en-emblematica-fotografia
By: Tommy O’Donnell
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the KCL Latin American Society or El Cortao.
Chile is often touted as South America’s most prosperous and stable nation. Its high-income economy, high living standards and leading Latin American figures in human development, economic freedom and low perception of corruption have helped develop Chile’s international reputation into one of repute and distinction. So, this begs the question; why are the streets of Chile currently sullied with political anger, burning buses and military presence? And furthermore, how did this all transpire from a simple hike in metro fares?
For those of us studying at King’s, I’m sure we have once or twice looked at the train timetable in a tube station and groaned at seeing ‘severe delays’ flashing before us, but the fury we may occasionally feel towards the Circle line cannot be compared to the current Chilean reality. So, let’s start with the background: on 1st October, the Panel of Public Transport Experts notified the Ministry of Transport and Telecommunications of the adjustment to Santiago’s metro and bus fares, something which is carried out on a monthly basis using an automatic calculation formula. This is done by evaluating multiple circumstances, with October’s adjustments specifically citing the values of fuel, the US dollar and the euro, as well as the consumer price index1 — AKA super complicated stuff that is far too advanced for my economically illiterate brain. The result? An approximate 4% hike in fares. This means that the monthly cost of public transport per person would be 13.8% of the minimum wage, a figure which is much higher than other major Latin American cities such as Buenos Aires, Mexico City and Lima, and a bit of a bank breaker if you’re a consistent metro or bus user.
Some commentators, however, cite other rationale behind the fare hikes. For example, former Minister Paola Tapia has brought up the acquisition of a new fleet of electric buses without tender, as well as the suspension of the new tender for bus services—decisions which were made by the incumbent government, led by President Sebastián Piñera. Tapia implies that the fare hikes are a result of irresponsible money management by the government, and not just the factors cited by the transport experts.
So how did we get to the point where we are seeing burning buses and multiple deaths? Well, it all started on 7th October when a campaign to dodge metro fares in protest of the hikes was started by secondary-school students in the country’s capital. Their message of ¡Evade! caught on with the general public, and a week later stations were being closed off to passengers after reports of violence. As the days went by, the violence continued to escalate, leading to the vandalisation of stations, destruction of public property as well as subsequent arrests and increased station closures.
Tensions reached a boiling point on 18th October when the police responded to barricades formed by protestors in downtown Santiago with water cannons and tear gas. Simultaneously, attacks were taking place at nearly every one of the city’s 164 metro stations, leading to a complete suspension of the metro system. As if these events weren’t enough, the headquarters of Enel Generación Chile, an electric company, was affected by a very substantial fire, leading to severe damages.
Here comes the part that started to get people really angry. During these events, Piñera was not in his presidential offices working hard to resolve the crisis, but instead he was sittin’ back with a slice at the birthday party of one of his grandchildren in one of Santiago’s most expensive pizza parlours. After his tone-deaf luxurious meal, he then addressed the nation and declared a 15-day state of emergency in Santiago, bringing armed forces to the streets of the capital.
This did not deter the people of Santiago, and it in fact sparked a fire under the rest of the country; states of emergency were gradually declared in regions outside of the capital and curfews imposed. And even though Piñera announced the cancellation of the fare hikes and the creation of a representative ‘dialogue panel’, the people of Chile were not satisfied, remaining on the streets past curfew and continuing to protest.
The President clearly had not learned his lesson, as in his next address he added fuel to the fire by saying the country was “at war with a powerful and implacable enemy”. Now, I’m not Chilean, but I know if my Head of State called me a “powerful and implacable enemy” it would only make me even more implacable. The people of Chile seemingly felt the same way as they continued to take to the street day after day and night after night, leading up to the protests’ climax on 25th October when over a million citizens took to the streets to protest against Piñera’s premiership and demand his resignation5. For context, that’s over 5% of the entire population of Chile. However, Piñera and the protesters must have got their wires crossed, because instead of resigning from his own post, the President instead dismissed every single one of his cabinet members. He said this was in order to “restructure [his] cabinet to confront these new demands”.
So now here we are. This is the worst civil unrest in Chile since the end of the Pinochet dictatorship, and with 21 dead, 2,500 injured and 2,840 arrested, the scale of this social revolt cannot be understated. It may have begun with metro fares, but it has led to a much wider discussion about equality and fairness in Chilean society. So, is there an end in sight? At the moment, we don’t know. Although the original goal of reversing the fare hikes has been met, and Piñera has additionally promised higher taxation on the rich and better pensions for the whole population7, there still remain many demands which are yet to be addressed; reforms in education and healthcare; the increasing of the minimum wage and wages in general; his own resignation.
All of the above would be seen as a severe upheaval in any nation, but the elephant which remains in the room is the country’s Constitution. Written by Chile’s former dictator Augusto Pinochet, the Constitution is a huge point of contention for the hundreds of thousands of protesters on the streets of Chile. The Constitution is extremely favourable towards safeguarding private property which has led to situations such as the privatisation of water companies… something which is very problematic for a country experiencing severe droughts — but I digress. Protesters see the document as a roadblock to real and long-lasting social change; how can the rights of everyday Chileans be guaranteed when the Constitution directly contradicts their goals? As you can imagine, abandoning and re-writing a constitution is not simple, especially in a time of such turmoil. Piñera is already severely weakened in his current political state, and the uncertainty of a new, constituent assembly-written Constitution is certainly not in his favour. So… what happens now? I have no idea, and frankly neither does anyone else. Piñera could cave to the protesters’ demands leading to the composition of a new constitution and revolutionary social reform, the likes of which have not been seen since the fall of Pinochet. On the other hand, he could stick to his guns and risk the continuation and escalation of the protests. Or perhaps his new cabinet and their proposals will be enough to appease the Chilean people. Who knows! Much like the rest of global politics at the moment, what happens next is anyone’s guess, and the only certainty is uncertainty.
