Abstract

Chile’s 1980 constitution was forcibly imposed by a bloody dictatorship. Its original sin, however, was not the only democratic fault. The rules or constitutional locks were designed to have a protected democracy that limited the exercise of popular sovereignty. Until today, Chile is the only Latin American democracy that has not yet replaced the substantive normative grounds upon which the dictatorship cemented its power. The paper examines how the theory of constituted constituent power may have ambivalent results, by taking Chile’s case study. In particular, it assess the attempt of former President Bachelet to replace the Constitution under the current rules. Although such project initially had the potential to truly transform Chile’s constitutional framework, it failed under the constraints of those amendment rules.