CLThe article discusses whether the proposed tax invariability in Chile's megareform is undemocratic. Academics like Yanira Zúñiga argue that it undermines parliamentary sovereignty by limiting legislative action for over two decades, calling it an extreme and partisan advantage achieved at the expense of democracy. However, the author counters this view, stating that democracy is not purely arbitrary majority decision-making. The argument is made that if the people, through their representatives, are sovereign, they can commit to long-term policies such as tax invariability and take measures to fulfill those commitments. The objection that future generations cannot be bound by current decisions is acknowledged but deemed flawed, as it is argued that considering the well-being of future citizens does not mean leaving all matters open for them. The author emphasizes that there is a duty to legislate for the common good, and sometimes committing to a policy for two decades is the best course of action for future citizens.
Bias read (Center): The article presents arguments from both sides regarding the democratic implications of tax invariability in the megareform. It acknowledges concerns about undermining parliamentary sovereignty but also provides counterarguments emphasizing the legitimacy of long-term commitments under democratic治理.
