Chile · Politics
Key Facts
- —The idea Figures around President Jose Antonio Kast floated a national vote if the Senate sinks his security reform (Emol and El Dinamo, 20 August).
- —The denial Interior Minister Claudio Alvarado said the same day that the government ‘has not thought about, and is not thinking about, a plebiscite.’
- —The law Article 128 allows a public vote only after Congress passes a reform and then overrides a presidential veto by two thirds.
- —The arithmetic The reform needs 29 of Chile’s 50 senators. The governing bloc holds 23, or about 26 with its usual partners.
- —The stakes If the Senate rejects the bill outright, it is shelved and a similar text cannot be filed again for a year.
Constitutional lawyers say Article 128 does not allow a public vote to rescue a bill that Congress has voted down.
A Chile referendum on new crime powers was raised and buried inside a single day. On Thursday 20 August, voices close to President Jose Antonio Kast floated a national vote to rescue his security reform.
By that afternoon his own ministers had ruled it out.
What Happened in One Day
Kast sent a constitutional security reform to Chile’s Senate on Monday 17 August. Because he attached the fastest urgency tag, senators have roughly 15 days to debate it.
The problem is arithmetic. Changing the constitution needs four sevenths of sitting senators, which is 29 of 50, and the governing side does not have them.
So on Thursday morning, Emol and El Dinamo reported that people around La Moneda were weighing an unusual escape route. If the Senate said no, the president would ask voters instead.
Why a Chile Referendum Was Floated at All
The appeal is easy to see. Polling shows crime is Chileans’ top worry, so a direct vote would move the fight from a hostile Senate to friendlier ground.
There is also a deadline problem. If the Senate rejects the bill in general, it is archived.
And under Chile’s rules a similar text cannot be presented again for a year. Arturo Squella, a senator and president of Kast’s Republican Party, put it on the record.
He told El Mercurio a public vote ‘is an option that cannot be ruled out’. Because the deeper purpose of the reform is to match the rules to what citizens are demanding.
Even so, no minister ever said it. The reporting rested on unnamed voices inside the governing coalition rather than an announced plan.
The Government Said No the Same Day
By Thursday afternoon the denial was flat. Claudio Alvarado, Kast’s interior minister and government spokesman, told reporters he wanted to deny the reports categorically.
‘The government has not thought about, and is not thinking about, a plebiscite,’ he said. Asked directly whether it was an option if the Senate refused, he said no.
Because in his reading no constitutional rule permits one at this stage. Jose Garcia Ruminot, the minister who manages relations with Congress, made the same point.
A public vote, he said, is for a disagreement between the two branches after a bill has been processed. Not a remedy for a bill that never got votes.
What Chile’s Constitution Actually Allows
This is the part that decided the story. Article 128 of Chile’s constitution does provide for a referendum on constitutional reform, but only at the end of a specific sequence.
First Congress must approve a reform. Then the president objects to it.
Then both chambers insist on their own text by a two thirds vote. Only at that point may the president choose a public vote instead of signing.
Marisol Pena, an academic and former president of Chile’s Constitutional Court, set out that sequence for Emol. Jorge Correa Sutil, a former justice of the same court, was blunter.
‘A plebiscite does not apply if Congress rejects the president’s proposal,’ Correa Sutil said. The constitutional lawyer Arturo Fermandois agreed, saying the tool exists for disagreements over wording, not for a flat parliamentary defeat.
In short, the experts and the ministers landed in the same place. A rejected bill produces no text to put to voters.
The Reform in Plain Terms
Kast announced the package in a national address on 5 August and signed it at La Moneda on 10 August. It is one bill carrying eight changes to the constitution.
The main pieces write public security into the constitution as a duty of the state, create a register of criminal and terrorist organisations. Allow separate prison regimes for those convicted under it, and make it easier to seize criminal assets.
None of that is where the fight is. The trouble sits in one new power.
The 240-Day Sticking Point
The bill would create a new state of exception for serious threats to public security. It would run 120 days and the president could extend it once, alone, for another 120.
That is eight months of emergency powers before Congress has any say. During it the government could restrict movement, assembly and association, intercept communications and requisition property, and deploy the armed forces alongside police.
Critics call that a state of siege by another name. Supporters say it is the only way to retake neighbourhoods where organised crime is entrenched.
What Kast’s Opponents Are Saying
Luis Cordero, who ran security under former president Gabriel Boric, gave Radio Cooperativa the line that became a headline. Taken as a whole, he said, it is a project that is ‘useless, technically very deficient and institutionally very dangerous’.
Camila Vallejo, Boric’s government spokeswoman until March and a Communist Party member. Went further on a University of Chile programme on 20 August.
The reform, she argued, is not really a plan against organised crime. ‘In the end it is to introduce a kind of authoritarian regime so that the president concentrates more power at the cost of ordinary citizens’ freedom,’ she said.
Alvaro Elizalde, a former interior minister, attacked the method rather than only the text. ‘The government’s way of legislating is to drive the steamroller through,’ he told Radio Duna on 19 August.
Adding there had been no willingness to talk. Elizalde also called it the most openly illiberal reform Kast’s government has presented.
Others on the left have made similar arguments about the balance between security and rights.
The Government’s Case
Martin Arrau has been Chile’s security minister since 19 May. He describes the reform as doing three things, and he does not accept the authoritarian label.
It recognises public security as a duty of the state, he says. It makes prosecution easier by naming criminal organisations in law.
And it creates a tool to recover territory captured by crime. The new emergency power, in his account, is built for deep.
Temporary interventions with accountability attached, in areas that ordinary policing struggles to enter. Kast answered the authoritarian charge himself on 18 August.
‘Have I censored any media outlet. ‘ he asked at a press industry event, saying none of that had happened and that what matters is the facts.
What Chileans Tell Pollsters
Public opinion is split in a revealing way. Cadem found on 20 August that 58% rejected letting the president decree a 240-day emergency without congressional approval, while 37% backed it.
Yet support flipped to 52% when the same power required Congress to sign off. In other words, voters like the goal and distrust the blank cheque.
The broader agenda polls better. An earlier Cadem round found 79% agreed with writing security into the constitution as a duty of the state.
And 84% backed permanent police in the 50 hardest-hit neighbourhoods. Meanwhile the crime numbers are moving the other way.
Chile recorded 1,091 homicide victims in 2025. A rate of 5.4 per 100,000 and a fall of about 11.5% on 2024, when there were 1,207 victims.
What Happens Next
The referendum route is closed, at least for now, on the government’s own reading of the law. That leaves Kast where he started, hunting for six more senators.
He is short inside his own camp as well as outside it, which is why the week has been so tense. Negotiations over the length of the emergency power are the obvious place to trade.
If those talks fail and the Senate votes the bill down, the one-year bar bites. Kast would then face three more years in office without the constitutional tool he campaigned on.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Chile’s government really propose a referendum?
Not officially. On 20 August, Emol and El Dinamo reported that the option was circulating among government allies.
Could a Chile referendum legally settle this?
Constitutional lawyers quoted by Emol say no. Article 128 allows a public vote only after Congress approves a reform, the president objects, and both chambers insist by two thirds.
What is in Kast’s security reform?
One bill with eight constitutional changes. It writes public security in as a duty of the state, creates a register of criminal organisations.
What happens if the Senate rejects it?
The bill is archived, and a text of similar character cannot be introduced again for a year. That deadline is the main reason a public vote was discussed at all.
Connected Coverage
Sources: Emol; La Tercera; El Dinamo; T13; Radio Duna; Radio Cooperativa; Cadem; Fiscalia de Chile.
This article was produced by The Rio Times’ automated newsroom system. How we use AI · Report an error
Read More from The Rio Times