To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Constitution of Chile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coat of arms of Chile.svg
This article is part of a series on the
politics and government of
Chile
Comptroller General
Constitutional Court
Flag of Chile.svg
Chile portal

The current Political Constitution of the Republic of Chile, approved by Chilean voters in a controversial plebiscite on September 11, 1980, under the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, partially effective March 11, 1981, fully effective 11 March 1990 and amended considerably on August 17, 1989 (via referendum) and on September 22, 2005 (legislatively), and also in 1991, 1994, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, replaced the earlier constitution of 1925. It is Chile's eighth constitution.[1]

Political Constitution of the Republic of Chile of 1980
Political Constitution of the Republic of Chile of 1980

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    347
    2 679
    60 945
    168 688
    7 485
  • ✪ Government Innovation and Design for Democracy | AIGA Design for Good episode 4
  • ✪ Constitutional History Lecture 12: At Swords' Point: Jefferson vs. Hamilton in the Cabinet
  • ✪ NCERT Class 9 Political Science / Polity / Civics Chapter 1: Democracy in Contemporary World
  • ✪ Allende and Pinochet in Chile | The 20th century | World history | Khan Academy
  • ✪ Time-lapse Video of USS Constitution in Dry Dock

Transcription

[ Music ] >> Laetitia Wolff: Welcome everyone to AIGA Design for Good webcast series. Today's our fourth webcast, and this program is supported by an award from the National Endowments for the Arts, as well as with additional support from IBM. Today our webcast is given to focus on innovation in governments. The Design for Good webcast series has tried to cover all the different initiatives that are happening at AIGA, and trying to illustrate how we can understand this Design for Good and practice, whether it's through dealing with issues related to women's rights, or it's about Social Impact 101, or it's about how to manage function in urban communities. Today, we're going to focus on government innovation, and I'll start by introducing you to one of our guests today. On my right, Emily Herrick, welcome Emily. Emily works at Reboot, a social impact firm in New York City, that self-describes itself as -- what did you say? >> Emily Herrick: We're a bit of a think/do tank. >> Think/do tank, that's one of my favorite expressions. Emily comes from communications/design background, and actually started working at Reboot as such and such position, and then evolving to service design after having joined SVA design for social innovation, a program that we're very close to, and that we support through AIGA. We have Chelsea Mauldin that will join us from far Brooklyn. Chelsea is the executive director of Public Policy Lab, a sort of small firm that has been focused on providing better public service and collaborating with government agencies to do so, really focused on low-income populations and at-risk Americans. She'll be joining us afterwards, Emily and Chelsea will play the role of respondents. And, our guest speaker is Tomas Ives, who is based in Chile. Tomas is now working at the government of Chile, as the head of the design in special projects department. He's trained as an illustrator, and happened to have been my student a few years ago at the SVA Impact Design for Special Change Program. And, I saw him evolve from being a rock and roll illustrator, who still is, but then joined the government, and we'll talk about this amazing multiple hat-wearing quality. So, with no further ado, I will invite now Tomas to walk us through a fantastic project that I thought could inspire Americans to think about their own constitution and their own democracy, this is really democracy at play. And, we're going to discuss in this webcast how design plays a role in really engaging civically various populations, be inclusive in this process, but also really look at like what are those tactics? Those strategies? And, those visual tools that can be leveraged to engage in such conversation that's not exactly an easy project to do. So, Tomas, to you. >> Laetitia Wolff: Hi everyone. Visibly, we're having a little technical issue here, the communication between US and Chile is being problematic. So, why don't I start with an informal conversation here with Emily Herrick from Reboot, who's joining us kindly from the New York office. I think one of the reasons why I was very interested in having Reboot involved in this conversation, is that first of all, there's like this practice at Reboot, around social impact and collaborating with a lot of the major development agencies and NGOs around changing the ways governments really function, right? And, how design can become a sort of strategic tool to make this happen. So, I have read an article on the Reboot website, that I just got done [phonetic]. Panthea Lee, the founder of Reboot, recently, and I thought, "Wow, this is perfect". I forgot how relevant the -- all this work that you're doing. So, Emily, you've been involved particularly recently in a sort of platform called Open Government Program Partnership, can you tell us about this and how it works? >> Emily Herrick: Sure, yes. I can step back and say a little bit about Reboot. So, we are a social impact firm like you mentioned earlier, we both work internationally and domestically, and our work kind of focuses on inclusive governments. We do that by helping governments, non-profits, international organizations, designed programs and policies that meet their user needs by using these user-centered design methodologies. And, our focus is really on inclusive governments, accountable governments, and we've been doing some of that work through the Open Government Partnership. The Open Government Partnership is an international initiative that governments can apply to be a part of. And, once they are accepted, they are responsible for creating action plans that represent the ideas of Open Government. And so, Open Government really means kind of, to those who aren't familiar, it's really about how you make a relationship better between citizens and their government. So, we think about that as actually opening up governments. So, how do you encourage governments to become more transparent? More participatory? And, how do you help citizens really participate in government to hold them to account? To make sure that there's a robust dialogue between the citizens and the governments that serve them. And so, we've been -- we partnered with five sub-national governments. So, under the federal government in every country, there's different levels of governments, from city governments to state governments, provincial governments? So, we had partnered with five of these governments around the world to really help them develop a DISCO creation action plan. So, how can they come together with citizens? With civil society? And, with governments to create a sort of commitment that really help them become more accountable, transparent, and participatory. And so, we've done that in five different contexts, like I mentioned before, anywhere from the city of Austin, to the government of Ontario, the city [inaudible] the state of Jalisco, Mexico, and the county government of [inaudible]. And, we -- yes, in Kenya, excuse me. And we really helped them kind of work through some, and facilitated this process, where they can really come together with citizens and decide what is the most feasible and impactful way to become more open? >> Laetitia Wolff: So, one of the questions that comes to mind is, "How do you start such a process?" I mean, for a government itself to realize that this is what they need to do, and you know, is there a demand from the population? I mean I imagine often these processes happen as a sort of healing process, often, within a sort of complicated political situation, ranging from post-genocide situations, terrorism, civil wars. I mean, what have been your experiences so far? >> Emily Herrick: Yes, I think, I mean, from our work, it really depends on the context. If you're working with this city of Austin on Open Government initiatives, it's very different than working with the county in Kenya. And so, I think for us kind of coming in to facilitate, "Oh, what first?" It's like, you have to have a government that really is interested in these principles, and that's where the Open Government partnership comes in, because they already have like kind of self-selected to be a part of this partnership. And so, what we can do to facilitate this process, is we really come in and understand kind of the complexity that we're coming into. As a design organization, we provide a strategic guidance along the way. And so, that really first starts with understanding what their political priorities are, what their challenges have been in the past, and what they really want to get out of something that's out of an Open Government initiative. For example, in Kenya, the work -- Open Government can feel a little bit like secondary to some of their more pressing needs. Service delivery challenges, infrastructure, making sure that everyone has water, those seem a little bit more pressing than maybe like becoming more transparent. So, we really wanted to go in and help them understand how to use Open Government to really a better service delivery. And so, that first starts with taking some time to really do some research, and understand what are the priorities of the government, and then how to best facilitate bringing together citizens and still [phonetic] a society that is really a representative sample of that, of the context. >> Laetitia Wolff: So, often in those engagements with those governments and their various stakeholders, technology seems to be playing an important role right? The key role in some instances. Especially in those countries in Africa or France, since [phonetic] where you've worked a lot. Where the access to mobile technology is sort of critical, in sort of the connections between people, can you speak to this a bit? >> Emily Herrick: Yes. I think there's definitely varying levels of technology used and desirability when it comes to Open Government. I think a lot of times it's very kind of instinctual to think that we should start with technology. I think when we first started working with this county in Kenya, for example, they were really excited about an open data platform, and it's something that they could put on their county website that could help them push out any of the data that they're creating kind of internally. But, when you think about that in a new context, you're thinking that most people don't have access to the internet other than their mobile phone, so how do you really help them see Open Government, not as something that's flashy and technology-based, but can be actually improve -- >> Laetitia Wolff: Their lives. >> Emily Herrick: Yes, and like service delivery, specifically. So, for Kenya, it kind of was taking -- we kind of asked them all, "Well, why do you want this open data platform? What is the goal of it?" And, they said that they were getting a lot of citizens that were providing feedback around service delivery, kind of through informal channels, specifically WhatsApp. People were whatsapping the government, whatsapping the director of roads and urban planning, and saying like, "My road's washed out, I need information on when it's going to be fixed", and how to, you know, how to like access that information. And, they thought that this open data platform would kind of provide some of that information. And so, we really helped them kind of take a step back and say, "Well, maybe what you really need is to build out the WhatsApp feedback mechanism that's already kind of started in a process", to really help citizens have their voice be heard in the government, and really help government respond to those needs. >> Laetitia Wolff: Right, the response is always exactly -- the big work to put in place. >> Emily Herrick: And, maybe it's on a website, but how do you actually make facilitate that connection between government and their citizens. >> Laetitia Wolff: Yes, we've seen in many many post-its projects, where really like putting their wishes and their desires on post-its that somewhat are supposed to go back to the city that they were, you know, that was inviting the conversation, but we never know the practice exactly. OK, so are we ready? Chile is back with us. Hola, hola, are you there? Hola, OK, super. So, we're going to let you do your presentation now. OK, we're going to start with a video of Tomas, and that will give us context for launching this constitutionary project that Tomas is going to talk to us about. >> Una constitución es la madre de las leyes de un estado, establece las principales instituciones del país, y que derechos y deberes tenemos las personas. Por eso, la nueva constitución debe construir el techo común de nuestra patria. Y para escribirla, todos y todas somos importantes. Uno, comenzaremos este proceso con una etapa de información cívica constitucional, para que todos y todas podamos conversar sobre la nueva constitución que queremos, de acuerdo a los mismos conceptos. Dos, recogeremos todas las voces que conforman nuestra diversidad, con diálogos ciudadanos entre marzo y octubre del próximo año, primero comunales, luego provinciales, y finalmente dialogo regionales. Tres, para que este proceso participativo sea transparente, libre, sin presiones ni distorsiones de ningún tipo, se conformara un consejo ciudadano de observadores que garantiza la etapa de participación. Cuatro, el resultado de estos diálogos participativos, compondrán las bases ciudadanas para la nueva constitución. Con estas bases, la Presidenta de la república dará formar un proyecto de nueva constitución, que también recoja lo mejor de la tradición constitucional chilena, y que reconozca las obligaciones jurídicas que Chile ha contraído con el mundo. Durante el segundo semestre del 2017, la Presidenta enviara el congreso de este proyecto de nueva constitución. Cinco, para que este cambio constitucional sea posible, es necesario modificar la constitución actual para que permita su reemplazo. El congreso será el encargado de decidir cómo y quiénes discutirán la nueva constitución. Seis, el congreso tomará la decisión sobre el mecanismo constituyente, y discutirá el proyecto de nueva constitución. Este escogerá entre cuatro alternativas. A, podría ser el mismo congreso en una comisión compuesta por un grupo de senadores y diputados. B, una convención constituyente mixta que incluya parlamentarios y ciudadanos. C, una asamblea constituyente, conformado por un grupo de personas elegidas para elaborar una nueva constitución. D, un plebiscito donde la ciudadanía elija entre las tres opciones anteriores. Siete, finalmente una vez debatido y sancionado al proyecto de nueva constitución de acuerdo al mecanismo escogido, la ciudadanía será convocada a un plebiscito para ratificar la propuesta de la nueva constitución para Chile. >> Tomas Ives: Well, good afternoon everyone, I am Tomas Ives. And, between December 2016 and generally 2017, we, all Chilean citizens and rest of the immigrants have the chance to be part of this historical part of the building this new constitution. I would like you to present you my experience as the designer in charge for all the visual aspects of this very unique participating process. As you could see in the video, it was kind of complex at the beginning, we had to take it and transform it into design products to explain people, increase participation, democracy. So, this process underwent for about 14 months, and I would like to give you some kind of context for you to understand why this process was necessary. So, after the first seven years, after the extreme right coup d'état by the Dictator Pinochet. He brought down the 1980 constitution, through our referendum, without the proper electoral registries. In addition to that, the political opposition have no access to the media at all. So, it's strong criticism to believe that this election contradicted the 1989 referendum. And, to the 2005 reform by the President during that time, Ricardo Lagos. But, none of this reduces the symbolism of the constitution as a material reminder of the dictatorship, and all the suffering that that man meant. Why? Because the people never were part of it, and just a very complex text always imposed from [inaudible]. When Michelle Bachelet returned to power in 2016, she promised big reforms. Intuitive the design and startup of a fully new constitutional process. [Inaudible] staff, the home office secretary and the communication secretary [inaudible] the task [phonetic]. The communication secretary will have like $1.5 million for the campaign, that will educate and stimulate participation. I know it sounds modest, but this is kind of a breakthrough. For example, Pinochet had extensively abused of the media control to achieve his objectives. To have now a public budget to promote a political reform, is kind of a new big thing. So, the process opens our workplace to apply new communication strategies which we will have to be both effective, I'm also being very cheap [phonetic]. So, we began by coding the constitution language accessible to people. And, we focus in the set of 37 cardinal virtues, which will make the essential [phonetic] easy to understand elements of the constitutions around the world. The first something we'll be focused so in constitutional education. A well-known cartoonist [inaudible] called Alberto Montt, is hired to present each virtue with animals and humor, to reach both old and younger generations. Since each virtue opens the way to our reflection or a meditation, we swapped [phonetic] into postcards that resemble a pack of cards sort of it or was [phonetic] of the constitution. The postcard will stimulate collectionism, and thus become the perfect [inaudible] summer. So, our campaign was friendly, funny, and it really worked. So, as you can see, people share it down at the beaches, share it during their summer times, and they have a good time talking about constitution. At the end of the participa -- at the end of the summer, the participation process had to begin. This is a more complex than boating [phonetic], as you can see and at the video of the recently. So, since there will be multiple ways of bringing your voice forth. So, on voluntary TV airings, the President announced that the participation process, and shared 50% of her seven minutes on air time with these animated videos to explain the participation process. This is the first time ever for the usually rigid republican [inaudible] of the President on TV. [Inaudible] for us, as designers, was refreshing. It was a full animated video, for first time on her broadcasted to all Chileans all -- in the whole country. As you can see, it's a personal invitation for each and every citizen to be part of one or each and every one of the four steps that are explained in video. You just have to focus on these four questions that concerns values, rights, and duties, and institutions. So, after that video presentation on live broadcast, we reinforced the six month, four step participation process, with a printed booklet on a free giveaway [inaudible] and send in the booklet all over Chile. So, with this publication, all political problems unleashed. So, the council of citizen observers, it's a group of people that observing the whole process of refunding the constitution, complained about the usage of the word "new". Because we are not supposed to promote a new constitution. They mean that perhaps we won't get to that point. So, the expression "new constitution" is censored out of the campaign, and it's deemed a proselytizer. But, we were allowed to say “a new constitution for Chile,” just without the word “new.” In the view of participation, start -- sorry. In the middle of participation, summoned gatherings start as soon as this booklet art is published. But, there are way more conflicts than just casting a vote, you have to listen, you have to debate, you have to agree, you have to learn how to disagree and deal with disagreement. So, the designed lines, formularies, and videos, not only to explain the procedure, but to teach Chileans how to be more civic, honestly something that we're not very used to in every way. But, by being-- using the friendly language of animation, we try to illustrate a diversity and tolerance for the whole methodology. So, if we can go to the second video, please? >> Para la constitución, una conversación. La etapa participativa del proceso constituyente nos invita a expresar que constitución queremos para chile, a través de nuestras opiniones respecto a los valores y principios, derechos, deberes, responsabilidades, y las instituciones del estado que debiera contemplar. Debes saber que si participas de este proceso, tu opinión quedara registrada y [inaudible] en la propuesta de cambio constitucional de la Presidenta. ¿Cómo participar? Hay cuatro formas, si puedes participar en una, o en todas ellas. Uno, participación individual. Ingresando a una constitución para Chile.cl, y respondiendo la consulta ciudadana. Solo necesitaras tu número de RUN y numero de documento. Podrán participar chilenos, extranjeros residentes, y también los chilenos residentes en el exterior, desde los 14 años de edad. Dos, encuentros locales. Estos pueden ser convocados por cualquier persona o grupo de personas. Déjese [phonetic] inscribir tu encuentro local y a sus participantes en la página web o en el número telefónico 600-204-0000, identificando un mínimo de 15 y un máximo de 30 participantes. Cada encuentro contara con un moderador previamente inscrito, elegido por el propio grupo. Al final del encuentro deberás completar el acta, el listado de participantes, y una fotografía de las personas que participaron. Subiéndolas a una constitución para Chile.cl. Podrás participar en un solo encuentro local entre el sábado 23 de abril y el jueves 23 de julio. Los resultados de los encuentros locales de tu provincia, fijaran la hacienda del cabildo provincial. Tres, cabildo provincial. Es una reunión pública abierta de ciudadanas y ciudadanos previamente inscritos, a realizarse en las 54 provincias de Chile el Sábado 23 de Julio. Este nivel busca que los temas constitucionales previtarios surgidos de sus encuentros locales, se manifiesten en una conversación abierta. En cada cabildo, se levantará un acta donde se expresarán acuerdos—los acuerdos parciales y desacuerdos entre los asistentes. Cuatro, cabildo regional. Es el ultimo nivel de proceso de diálogos territoriales. Se realizarán en las 15 capitales regionales el sábado 6 de agosto. Aquí se conocerán los acuerdos definitivos del nivel provincial, y se dialogara sobre los acuerdos parciales y desacuerdos. 5 Para nuevos acuerdos ahora de carácter racional. La etapa participativa concluirá con la elaboración de un documento denominado "Bases Ciudadanas para la Constitución". Este documento incidirá en la propuesta de constitución que la Presidenta de la república presentará al país. Si participas de este proceso, tu opinión será parte de esta constitución debatida en democracia para las nuevas generaciones de ciudadanos. Infórmate de los detalles, inscríbete y participa en una constitución para Chile.cl. Para la constitucional, una conversación. >> Tomas Ives: So, participation can actually be fun, and you can discuss with our citizens, it's OK, it's fun, it's healing, it's healing the fears of the long dictatorial period. It can be respectful. As the design elements multiply, we set up a main website with all of the information. And, here we would encounter a second problem, who is in charge of the information flow? In particular, it's output. The chief of stock office works well with the communication office, that is us. And, we would [inaudible] our closer partnerships, since we have to sportly along the way think, design, publish, think again, design again, and publish again. But, the home office, it's a technical host. For transparency reasons, it's a key to ensure an impartial registration system, and they do not have a rhythm, because of security reasons, of course. Well, home office, they have the technical host, and they take care all about the security. So, keeping all the data as secure as they can. So, furthermore, after the new constitution incidents, the observers are closely monitoring each and every word we use, so we had to be really careful about the whole materials that we are posting on social networks and the website. So, the act of communication itself, it's kind of an attitude of equality. Everyone has the right to speak to the masses, but most important, everyone has the duty to speak to each other. So, this logo, for the constitution, at conversation, o "para la constitución, una conversación", because a powerful logo, that branded our whole content during this process. So, complementary actions are designing for the participation of three minorities too. In that way, we have the constitutional indigenous process, that was focused on the nine originary cultures of Chile, the I think process, that was, it was focused on civic education and constitutional conversations with children, and the Chileans abroad program, that was focused on the partici -- and, to encourage the participation of the more than a million Chileans living overseas. So, as soon as the self-summoning gatherings are over, it started the next step, the assemblies. So, assemblies will be setup at public schools, usually on the range of 300 people, divided in work groups of 20 people. So, if you can imagine this, during the dictatorship for 70 years, it was illegal to assemble meetings, and now the government itself is gathering people in spaces. This is kind of, I don't know, it's kind of revolutionary in a way when we used to speak about it. So, we decided to do a plotting one week before the gatherings in Patagonia, as a lab test. But, we publicly announced as a lab test. Having that, I don't know if anyone of you, or listeners, have you ever visit Patagonia? It's actually a really beautiful place, it looks like a different country. So, the experiment itself is kind of a marketing device, bringing Patagonia closer to the rest of Chile, in a leading futuristic role. Once we've reached the final step, the regional councils, we attempt technological feats. The simultaneous transmission of the streaming of the 16 councils throughout Chile. We wanted to communicate the feeling of simultaneous participation. And, we do not have the budget to do it like via free-TV airing, and cable/satellite is not available to everyone here in Chile. So, finally the idea is Chileans can see Chileans everywhere participating with passion, respect, and equality. So, without like some kind of a sense of maturity going on, the participation period, after the regional councils, the participation period was finally over. So, right now, back then, sorry, much tedious non-audiovisual part of the process unfolds. The systematization of the big data, 90,000 queries, 8,000 gatherings, 67 provincial assemblies, and 16 regional assemblies, will be hard to do. And, the approach to that was not digital, was analogical. So, the academy was called for this, and as you can -- as some of you may know, academics dislike cameras, publicity, and media, and it becomes impossible task to coordinate press conferences, activities, or even artifacts to explain people how the big data is being processed. And, I must assume that we failed to dabble up enough status [phonetic] for this stage. Perhaps because it's of its analogical approach. And, this was probably the least successful powerful work. The report finally comes to light after three months later than the deadline. The President received it, and you have to understand, it's her who will now write the new constitutional text incorporating the results of the participation of state. The President herself warranties the inclusion of the participation process into definite text, she will bear this responsibility on her arms. The production of several events unfolds. The constitutional process has been a process of collective understanding of equality. So, the final exhibition with the results given to the President, it's organized for the President as a gift for her strong personal commitment to the whole process. The process has achieved an overall magic graphic style in many ways. It just tries to be memorable. So, Chile's moving into other issues like types, economic growth, political turmoil, and this potluck of the constitution reform, it's kind of over. Participation can actually be respectful and fun. But, the design elements multiply, we set up a main website with all the information, sorry. So, the self-summoning -- I'm sorry, I mixed my papers. So, as an essential group for any long-run campaign, it's timing and rhythm, those are the essences of campaigns. The steps now for 2017 will go back to the boring language of politics. The President, right now, at the end of this month, she must send the reform to the reformed mechanism of the constitution. So, in that way, we need two thirds of the representatives to agree upon an almost impossible fact, which requires a new campaign that we are working to. We hold general elections in November 2017, and the political climate, it's volatile these days, as you yourself have experienced in the United States. By the end of the year, the President will submit the new constitution to the new reformed mechanism. It will be her final act before her departure from office. So, December 2017 feels not only like the end of an intense season, but like an upcoming blank page on the Chilean history canvas. So, we have a year ahead of us to design, to think, what to put in that blank canvas, and we're working on that. >> Laetitia Wolff: And, the pressure to make it happen between now and November is, I imagine, pretty big. But, Tomas, I have a first question for you. You mentioned values, principles, rights, and duties, and asking the participants to really think about what were the institutions that mostly matter to them? What was in the experience over the past few months, the word of the notion that seemed to be the most consensus? >> Tomas Ives: Overall, Justice. It has like 57% of mentions, it's awesome. At the second place, it's democracy. So, justice and democracy, it's like the main spirit of a constitution, right? And, the people know it. So, as long as -- well, there's other issues like administrative issues that involve Chilean policies, like decentralization of the state, etc., that also have like this important mentions, but justice and democracy are the top two of the list. >> Laetitia Wolff: And so, what we saw in your process, it's the sort of scaled process, where you sort of start with different scale of the region, the county, the city, the small region. It's very interesting how it sort of feeds into creating this collective voice. What was the sort of main challenge that you had engaging with the indigenous populations? >> Tomas Ives: Well, it was about trying to find what will be the mythology that you have to use during these gatherings, self-summoned gatherings. Because, it's much more complex than just voting, because you have to argue with people, you have to talk to people that probably you don't know. So, we tried to do this, to create this message, through these funny animated characters, and to tell people, "OK, if you're willing to do this, you will spend 6 to 8 hours in a conversation about politics, about constitution, about values, etc." So, convincing people about this -- telling people like this is important and we want you to do it, and it's much more complex than voting. I think that was kind of the main challenge we had. >> Leititia Wolff: Chelsea, I remember you told me when you were working with the mayor's office on digital access, that the mandate of the mayor was to meet the people where they are. Which is sort of the phrase that we often hear more recently in terms of creating a social impact that really is inclusive. Can you speak to this experience, and if you can compare it to the situation you just heard in Chile? >> Chelsea: Yes, sure. I think in that project, which was a partnership with the New York City mayor's office of digital strategy, their task was to develop a series of guidelines and recommendations for how New York City public agencies could deliver digital services that really speak to the needs of New Yorkers. And interestingly, the idea of meeting people where they are, was not something that was in our beliefs originally, it was something that emerged from our team engaging with New Yorkers to say, "What do you require of digital services for them to be valuable for you in your life?" And, what we heard from people and it's interesting, I think it's an echo of this idea of justice, and justice being critical to people, is that it wasn't good enough for the government of New York City to push out services that were notionally equitable, that had to be genuinely equitable, meaning available to all people in their lives as they lived them. That came from a bunch of research that we did, specifically targeting marginalized populations. The populations who we felt were likely to be disadvantaged when attempting to access digital services. Again, I thought it was really interesting that Tomas discussed kind of starting at Patagonia. You know, this idea that you as a designer, who's interested in issues of social equity, you attempt to identify who are the populations that will be both affected by this work that I am carrying out? Or the team that I'm working with is carrying out. And then, who amongst those people who are going to be affected, is least likely to have appropriate access, or appropriate power. And, you start there, you say, "Let's begin our process with the people who are least likely to be included if we don't make a point of saying we are going to go to you and ask you about your experience". So, for us, looking at digital services in New York City, we said, "How do we conduct research with people who don't have digital access? What does it mean to provide digital service to someone who doesn't have a computer? What is a digital service in that context? What does it mean to provide a digital service to someone who has profound visual impairments? So, they can't see a screen. What does it mean to provide digital services to someone who not only doesn't speak or read English, that may not speak or read their native spoken tongue?" So, in all of those instances, we sought out the opportunity to do this collaborative research policy making process with people who we felt were not typical powered in that conversation. So, it's fascinating to hear Tomas talking about their attempts to address some of those same questions in Chile, with this obviously very much bigger question of the constitution. >> Leititia Wolff: Thank you. And, I think what comes out of all of your experiences, is this assumption that the engagement, the civic engagement of these various populations, is going to start with a very specific topic, in this case the constitution, in your case, digital strategy, in your case, Open Government. But, what I want to hear more about, maybe I'll start with you, Emily, is how do you start this conversation when you're not sure about the educational level of the population you're engaged with. Meaning not just education in general, but the civic level of understanding how these entities and these political powers even function, does that matter? >> Emily Herrick: I think it definitely matters, I think Chelsea spoke about it -- turn my headphones on. Spoke about it beautifully. When you kind of, you have to go and ask them, and then kind of understand the different ranges of education people have before you're designing a solution, right? You have to really understand the constraints people are operating in, and that includes their level of education. And, I think through a lot of my work, people always over-estimate how much people know about the civic process. And so, you kind of -- you first, you do your thorough research, and you frame your problem accordingly, and then you test it continuously. And, then that kind of gives you the parameters of how you can kind of design for everyone. >> Leititia Wolff: And, even present to them. >> Emily Herrick: Yes. >> Leititia Wolff: How do you present to them the fact that their involvement is very complicated conversation of them designing their own government? >> Emily Herrick: Yes. I think it's an enormous challenge, and I think it comes from really testing out different approaches, and I'm sure Tomas can speak too, how they engage different, different levels, and in such an intricate process of the constitution. >> Chelsea: I think one answer to that too, is that you -- or I think all of us would probably describe ourselves as designers who practice at human center, or at user center to design methodology. So, you start from where your users are. So, that question of, "How you describe a process?" What you call it, starts by first listening. It doesn't start by me coming in and saying, "This is how you should understand what a digital service is." It starts by me coming in and saying, "How do you ever try to, you know, interact with the city?" You know, you ask people about their own lives and their own experiences, and you ask them to define them on their terms. And, by attentively listening, you hear the language they use, and then you use that language to frame the questions that you want to ask, and to get at the problems that you're trying to solve by adopting their own vocabulary, and their overall view. >> Leititia Wolff: Right, and bringing back to their life experience. >> Chelsea: Exactly. >> Leititia Wolff: I wanted to focus on one more topic. And, unfortunately we had a little bit of a delay for this webcast, but I think it's a really critical point of this project, and quite a symbolic demonstration of the power of design, of visual design, of illustration in this case, a craft in this social impact/engagement. And, we're all facing off in the user center processes, sometimes the design quality, the product, is sort of put at the end or less important. Here, it all started with this animation of this video that you have developed, Tomas. I'm just curious to see how you leverage your illustrator background in this process. >> Tomas Ives: Well, actually when we receive all the information from methodology, it was kind of reading Chinese for me. So, we had to code it and rewrite it, and hire some screenwriters to transform it into some kind of manual, like if you were playing some game like, I don't know, Monopoly, or stuff like that. If you answer this, you can go to the next level, if you answer this, you can go to the next levels. You can choose each and every word of these 37 works, etc. So, the way that we -- how did we get to say, "Well, we need an animation video", it was kind of trying to call that spirit of the games, and gatherings, and rules, simple rules, and make it a product that it could be printed, it could be televised, it could be shared by social media. If you watch it from the beginning to the end, you can understand the whole process. And, make it as simple as possible for a constitutional conversation, that will take you six to eight hours. So, that was kind of the inspiration, but that we had to get to the point of doing info-graphics and animation, fun animations. >> Leititia Wolff: You said that, you're afraid that now they're going to go back to the boring language of politics. >> Tomas Ives: Exactly. >> Leititia Wolff: I do think that you've had like an incredible pioneering role in shifting the way things are being told, and how you tell a story, and how you use these strategic tools, visual tools, as a way to practice democracy. >> Tomas Ives: Yes. Well, right now, we are trying to figure out like, "How can we put this whole back to politics, going back to the congress, how we can go back to all the people that participated during the constitutionary reform process?" This big survey, how can we put them back to push this to congress? And, to be aware of what's going on? To call their senators, to call the people in congress, to say, "Hey, my work, my values, my institution's all on that document", so move on. So, let's go to next step, like let's decide how are we going to reform the constitution? So, that's the point where we are focusing right now. How can we do it? To do it like in the same way that we did this whole process in a fun way, in a democratic way, with a republican spirit, with a democratic spirit, you know? So, that's where our issues are focused right now. >> Leititia Wolff: Yes. So, I want to finish on a sort of personal note, and ask you all to speak to your personal career pathway. I mean, taking you, Tomas, as the example of like the tattooed illustrator that joined the government. I mean, can you tell us about your other life? And, then I want to hear about that from Chelsea and Emily. >> Tomas Ives: Yes. You mean like how did this tattooed illustrator got to the government? >> Leititia Wolff: To work with the President. >> Tomas Ives: Well, as soon as I got back from New York, I started working doing presentations for political programs, like PowerPoint presentations, that used to be boring. But, I decided to have like something like info-graphics, much more of what you can see at the presentation I just made, like move things around, do logos, and create artifacts, like political artifacts, designing politics. And, it turns out that I was -- it got, we had like success doing that. So, that's when they called me back and said, "Hey, well, we have this special project. We're doing this whole new team of 25 people, we need them to be focused on the constitution process". And, was I, "Well, OK, great, sounds like a monster coming ahead of me", but anyway, was as super difficult, the political struggle was super difficult, too. Anyway, I think that this whole thing stopped, we learn and understand as designers what Chelsea was saying about we're going to have to go and put the solutions on the table, we just need to hear that you have a dialogue. And, after that, we can design a product. So, thinking, discussing, designing, testing, design it again, etc. So -- >> Leititia Wolff: Una conversación. >> Tomas Ives: La conversación. So, I think that kind of spirit took me to work with at the palace of the government, with tattoos. >> Leititia Wolff: That's amazing. What about you, Chelsea? I know you went to London School of Economics. You were at some point heading a bid in Brooklyn? >> Chelsea: Yes, my Masters study was in Social Science and Urban Design. And, when I returned to New York after that program at the LSE, I had a very good experience of working with another non-profit organization here in New York City called The Design Trust for Public Space, which provides strategic design assistance to public agencies. They're taking on a range of public realm, more built environment projects. So, thinking about design in that context of the public sector's control of the public realm. And, that was really my first experience doing work in a government context. And, it was just immediately interesting to me that the scale on which one can operate when one partners with government, is remarkable. Obviously there are huge challenges that come with scale, complexity and speed is obviously not such a great thing often, but really the ability to say, "We can make a thing, a product, a service, an environment, a policy, a constitution, which affects millions upon millions of people, is a really remarkable experience as a designer. So, after that original bit of my life where I was focused more on thinking about design of the context of the built realm, some colleagues and I launched the public policy lab as a not for profit. Although we function a lot like a consultancy, we're actually a non-profit organization. Because, we feel that our goal is not just to provide design services to governments who are trying to redesign social services, but also to really advocate for the use of design methodologies when governments are thinking about how to improve policies of social service delivery. >> Leititia Wolff: Yes, I remember when I met you first with Sylvia Harris. And then, at that time I was working on an explorential [phonetic] project, with my little crazy, ambitious ideas. And, you said to me, "I don't work for free. No way. Those agencies, they're going to pay for my services, and we'll have some fellows helping them figure out what exactly they need". I remember that. >> Chelsea: I think that it's a danger where designers want to do good work in the worlds, and we're so motivated by that. And, so often, particularly more design-naive partners, don't actually understand the kind of professional and time-requirements of doing really meaningful and professional design work. And, some people say, "Can you just help us with this?" And, I think of that [phonetic] one is always tempted, because you want to be helpful. But, at the same time, not only do all of us who are making our lives as professionals and designing fields need to pay our own rent, but also I think it's important for government entities to begin to realize that this is a professional capacity that one pays for. You would not expect-- >> Laetitia: It's work. >>Chelsea: Yes, you wouldn't expect any other provider of a valuable and uniqueful service to sell any of your work for free. >> Leititia Wolff: Thank you. All right, one last word for Emily. She went from communications design to service design. >> Emily Herrick: Yes. When I started my career working as a communications designer, I worked in book publishing, I've also worked for some socially focused branding agencies. I was deigning annual reports, and collateral for non-profits. But, as a graphic designer, a communications designer, I've kind of always felt like I was coming in at the end of the process, kind of putting the finishing touches on something that I continuously had questions about how programs or services that I was promoting were really designed. And so, that constant questioning of, "How can I get to the front of the process?" Or really the definition of the shaping and the scoping of solutions, kind of always brought me towards service design, I didn't really know what it was, I had no kind of understanding of it. But, when I started working at Reboot, I was hired as a communications designer. We are a very small team of 20 people over two continents, so really only 11 in the office here in New York. Really, an understanding of how would this kind of work was happening? This user center of design work was really happening in a government context, some internationally as well. And, was really drawn to it, the problem scoping and the users in their design. Methodologies until [phonetic] I kind of in between being hired at Reboot and kind of working under our [phonetic] communications design apartment. I have come back to school, to the School of Visual Arts' Design for Social Innovation Program, and had an opportunity to really kind of un-bridge [phonetic] myself in this kind of type of thinking, and really came out of it. I'm much better and more well-rounded designer, I think. >> Leititia Wolff: Yes. Holistic design. Well, thank you. I mean, you know, wanted to finish on these set of more background conversations, because I think it's important to the overall conversation of Design for Good. And, what we're trying to share with at AIGA, is that there's hope, there are jobs, there are roles to play. There's an influence you can have at different levels, in different ways. But, these civic engagement projects really show us the potential that design can play, and that very simple seemingly fun, as you call them, Tomas, illustrations actually go really far into messaging the value of democracy today. So, thank you all for participating today. We'll be publishing some additional references and resources on our websites. We will be also providing a closed caption version of this video, and clean up all the snaffu in between. Thank you Lilly Smith for helping us produce this webcast again. Thank you John Snowden, our videographer. Thank you Tomas for joining us. Thank you Chelsea, thank you Emily. Thank you to our sponsors NEA and IBM. And, see you in a month for webcast number five.

Contents

Legitimacy

According to law professor, Camel Cazor Aliste, the Constitution of 1980 has problems of legitimacy stemming from two facts. First, the writing commission was not representative of the political spectrum of Chile—its members were hand-picked by the dictatorship of Pinochet and opponents of the regime were deliberately excluded. Second, the constitution's approval was achieved through a controversial and tightly government-controlled referendum in 1980.[2]

Timeline of Constitutions

See also

References

  1. ^ "Chronology". Constitute. Retrieved April 22, 2015.
  2. ^ Cazor Aliste, Camel (2000). "Democracia y constitucion en Chile". Revista de Derecho. Austral University of Chile. IX: 25–34. Archived from the original on May 18, 2015. Retrieved April 30, 2015.

External links

This page was last edited on 17 September 2019, at 01:49
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.