Chilean constitutional referendum, 1980

A constitutional referendum was held in Chile on 11 September 1980. The proposed new constitution would replace the 1925 constitution, and was approved by over two-thirds of voters.

The new constitution ensured that Augusto Pinochet could remain as President of the Republic for a further eight years with increased powers, after which he would face a re-election referendum. Further reforms, beginning in 1989 and most recently in 2005, have attempted to make the constitution more democratic.

In the election, Chileans older than 18 years of age (including the illiterate and blind), as well as foreigners with legal residence in Chile older than 18 years of age who could prove their proper immigration status, were allowed to vote. Participation was obligatory except for those who were physically or mentally impaired or imprisoned.

To vote, the only document required was a certificate of identity issued by the Civil and Identification Registry Service. No electoral roll was prepared for the referendum.

The proposed new constitution gave the position of President of the Republic significant powers. It created some new institutions, such as the Constitutional Tribunal and the controversial National Security Council (COSENA). In its temporary dispositions, the document ordered the transition from the former military government, with Augusto Pinochet as President of the Republic, and the Legislative Power of the Military Junta (formed by the heads of the Navy, Air Force, National Police, and a representative of the Army, the head of the Army being president of the republic), to a civil one, with a time frame of eight years, during which the legislative power would still be the Military Junta. It set the first eight-year presidential term for Pinochet, with a referendum in the eighth year, in which only one candidate, nominated by the Junta, would be up for acceptance.

The candidate, as expected, was Pinochet himself. While the steps to follow in the case of a triumph of the "yes" option, which the document clearly anticipated, were clearly delineated, the steps for the "no" triumph were less clear but still clear enough that no serious doubt emerged when the "no" option actually was victorious in the 1988 referendum.

...
Wikipedia