|
|
Catrileo, as part of the Structure and Functioning subcommittee, eliminated the phrase “República de Chile” from the Convention Regulations. The most conservative sectors of the Convention expressed their annoyance and maintained that the legitimacy of the process was weakened by this fact. Catrileo explained to the critics that this was precisely what was going to be discussed. In her view, “Chile is a multinational state. The peoples are speaking, it is time to refound history with many flags and rights». And he added: “This is a paradigm shift, which we want [to] be made clear in the new Constitution and in the Convention.
Which is that here we have diverse peoples, nations Singapore Phone Number List that pre-existed the State, and we are the sovereigns, those of us who are going to refound or give this new institutionality to the State». The next day, he reinforced his conviction: "The Republic of Chile for the Mapuche has been very invasive, it has not recognized us and we are the sovereigns, the ones who are going to refound or give this new institutionality to the State". The next day, the lawyer Amaya Álvez delved into the controversy that had generated the reaction of the most conservative sectors of the Convention and the country.
She, in her words: "removing the notion of the Republic of Chile from the article is a kind of symbol to rethink this Plurinational State and a way to support the historical claim made by the reserved seats." Ella álvez shares that Chile is facing a paradigm shift: "talking about the peoples of Chile with the idea of a republic for Chile" does not seem contradictory to her23. Are the transformations being carried out by the Mapuche constituents the door to neoliberal multiculturalism? Will they allow the consolidation of collective rights? Is political violence the "true path" to the conquest of the collective rights of the Mapuche people.
|
|
发表于 2023-5-6 00:40:58
