From cacerolazo to rechazo - six voices on why they first endorsed the Estallido Social but subsequently rejected the new constitution

Sammanfattning: This case study focuses on an episode of the Chilean constitutional process within the context of the social unrest of 2019– the Estallido Social. The social unrest gathered millions of citizens asking for, among other things reforms, and a new constitution. The unrest accomplished a change of the constitution with a significant majority, yet when the last referendum was held, the results showed a majority of 61.89 % had rejected the proposal for the new constitution. This result implied people who first supported the unrest must have changed their minds. That partition is what is being analyzed in this study, the purpose being to explore why these voters changed their minds. The results are based on interviews with six people who endorsed the social uprising and reviewed through theories on ideology and critical discourse analysis. The study shows that there are two main intersecting themes among the interviewees, which are: 1) misalignment between expected outcomes of the Estallido Social, and what they perceive was delivered as a response, and 2) concerns about the outcome expressed as distrust and fear regarding the constitutional process. These concerns being influenced by hegemonic power discourses and ideology, contributing to an un identification with the constitutional process, and the ‘side’ represented by it. Thus, the voters interviewed might not have had a change of heart, but of sides.