Chile Constitutional Referendum, September 4th 2022

[BigSerg]

How do the independents lean politically?

90% of them are leftist (as a rule of thumb, every independent outside district 11)

Also: BEST ELECTION EVER

Yes, 37% turnout FANTASTIC!! 😒😒

[Former President tack50]

Ok so uh, given the results, should I worry about Chile becoming a Bolivarian Republic of some sort and West Venezuela in a couple of years? (Given the left holds a 2/3 supermajority)

Or is the Chilean left not a danger in that way?

[Estrella]

Ok so uh, given the results, should I worry about Chile becoming a Bolivarian Republic of some sort and West Venezuela in a couple of years? (Given the left holds a 2/3 supermajority)

Or is the Chilean left not a danger in that way?

In some ways, Chile is arguably the most "European" Latin American country, and this includes the facts that 1) it has a strong civil society that you can't just stomp on like Chávez did, 2) it has a well-developed, diverse economy that would be hard to sink even if you tried, not least because Codelco ≠ PDVSA, 3) the vast majority of insane anti-democratic people are found on the far-right. And don't forget that this two-thirds majority includes people like Christian Democrats.

Really, this feels like being in 1980s Spain and asking if the country is going to turn into Soviet Union after the González landslide(s).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ok so uh, given the results, should I worry about Chile becoming a Bolivarian Republic of some sort and West Venezuela in a couple of years? (Given the left holds a 2/3 supermajority)

Or is the Chilean left not a danger in that way?

Only if they get couped and another Pinochet takes over.

[Former President tack50]

Ok so uh, given the results, should I worry about Chile becoming a Bolivarian Republic of some sort and West Venezuela in a couple of years? (Given the left holds a 2/3 supermajority)

Or is the Chilean left not a danger in that way?

In some ways, Chile is arguably the most "European" Latin American country, and this includes the facts that 1) it has a strong civil society that you can't just stomp on like Chávez did, 2) it has a well-developed, diverse economy that would be hard to sink even if you tried, not least because Codelco ≠ PDVSA, 3) the vast majority of insane anti-democratic people are found on the far-right. And don't forget that this two-thirds majority includes people like Christian Democrats.

Really, this feels like being in 1980s Spain and asking if the country is going to turn into Soviet Union after the González landslide(s).

Tbf that was a genuine concern in some circles here right after the 1982 election, that Gonzalez had a "secret plan" of big nationalizations and creating a socialist economy. These spiked up after one of the very first things he did in office was precisely nationalizing a big corporation. Admittedly a shady one and it was a good action (plus that corporation was later reprivatized anyways) but it definitely didn't make people less afraid at the time. Obviously the fears were very unfounded with hindsight given he embarked in the exact opposite of sweeping nationalizations and siding with the Soviets by privatizing stuff and campaigning to remain in NATO.

[seb_pard]

I see that a Republican is getting 30% in the race for mayor of Las Condes. Is that just local protest vote (I assume it's a place where UDI have been in power since forever), or is it indicative of something re: the kind of people who live there?

Is a bit of the two. Las Condes is the natural stronghold (because is where half of the economic elite live, with rest living in Vitacura, Lo Barnechea, Chicureo and some other pockets), which is very right-wing and not moderate but very disciplined in terms of voting. What happened in Las Condes is that Lavin choose his successor but Lavin, which is a master marketer and a chameleon, tried to portrait himself as a social-democrat (well, he defined as a Bacheletist/aliencist 15 years ago) so he probably angered some people in his coalition in a time they feel under siege.

The Republican candidate, Gonzalo de la Carrera, is a well-known figure (he has a radio show in Agricultura, the favorite radio station within the right-wing) and he is crazy and a nasty man (you can check some of his controversies) and I think he perfectly represent part of the right-wing that don't want to negotiate now and would love to have the military back. They have always been there but for the first time they feel unheard and not represented (lol), so they are voting for this candidate.

[seb_pard]

Ok so uh, given the results, should I worry about Chile becoming a Bolivarian Republic of some sort and West Venezuela in a couple of years? (Given the left holds a 2/3 supermajority)

Or is the Chilean left not a danger in that way?

If you think every country in the world has a danger of becoming something like that.

But I would say that on the contrary, with these results (not only in the convention) Chile has chosen to solve our serious crisis through institutional channels, and that is the beauty. If you start to see the elected members of the convention, the quality if pretty good (with a mix of constitutionalists, academics and members of the civil society).

The thing is that the left is still fragmented and divided, but for the first time, the right don't have the chance to exploit that in order to maintain the status quo.

The Constitutional convention will not be a easy process, the country will experience some tension, but that is actually needed (to avoid another October 18th), but I'm pretty optimist that the final result will be very good and we will have a constitution that will not have all the answers, but will provide the framework to people to solve issues in a way that the current one is totally uncapable.

[seb_pard]

In addition, Pablo Maltes, Jiles' husband, did pretty bad in the RM gubernatorial (5th place, with just 10%).

[Niemeyerite]

How do the independents lean politically?

90% of them are leftist (as a rule of thumb, every independent outside district 11)

Also: BEST ELECTION EVER

Yes, 37% turnout FANTASTIC!! 😒😒

That makes the performance of the conservatives look even more pathetic.

[seb_pard]

How do the independents lean politically?

90% of them are leftist (as a rule of thumb, every independent outside district 11)

Also: BEST ELECTION EVER

Yes, 37% turnout FANTASTIC!! 😒😒

That makes the performance of the conservatives look even more pathetic.

Well, final turnout was 43.35% haha

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Others here are commenting that Chile is not about to turn into a communist state, and they're right. But the results are still disastrous. Even if the Chilean Left will not be able to fully transform the society, it's a reality that the communists now have real influence and power, and that other left wing groups do as well. Changes, such as a gender parity mandate or an indigenous seats mandate, as well as anti-capitalist changes in the fundamental economic structures, should be expected. The country isn't about to turn into another Venezuela -- but it is a realistic expectation for it to become another Argentina.

[kaoras]

Ok so uh, given the results, should I worry about Chile becoming a Bolivarian Republic of some sort and West Venezuela in a couple of years? (Given the left holds a 2/3 supermajority)

Or is the Chilean left not a danger in that way?

In some ways, Chile is arguably the most "European" Latin American country, and this includes the facts that 1) it has a strong civil society that you can't just stomp on like Chávez did, 2) it has a well-developed, diverse economy that would be hard to sink even if you tried, not least because Codelco ≠ PDVSA, 3) the vast majority of insane anti-democratic people are found on the far-right. And don't forget that this two-thirds majority includes people like Christian Democrats.

Really, this feels like being in 1980s Spain and asking if the country is going to turn into Soviet Union after the González landslide(s).

This is true. I don't know what the future will bring, but we will pave our own way. Comparisons with other countries are meaningless speculation.

BTW, the Christian Democrats got 2 seats, easily the single most pleasing result for me. Independientes por una nueva Constitución/No neutrales with 11 seats are probably more in line with what you are thinking, center-left moderates and liberals. Besides, while basically all of the independents are left-leaning, they have a myriad of views, and is very unlikely you could coordinate them to turn us in the People's Socialist Republic of Chile.

[kaoras]

Some thoughts.

-The party system of the last 30 years is over. The right is in ruins, it was an epic bloodbath for everyone in Unidad Constituyente save for PL and PS. FA+PC got good results, but the main winners were the independents. This is where people went to express anger with politics.

-I just cannot possibly analyze objectively the results for the right. I fantasized about this kind of result, but seeing them come true is just incredible. I'm so happy to see their unbelievable incompetence, murderous repression, and destructive immobilism punished so thoroughly. The United Right got 20,5% of the vote, they didn't even get 22% of Reject. To get a lower result for them you have to go all the way back to 1965 when Partido Liberal+Partido Conservador got 12%, and that was with the Christian Democrats getting 43,6% (did I mention they got 2 seats now?). Piñera has totally destroyed Chile Vamos

They didn't win any seats in Atacama nor South Santiago. Even in their district 11 strongholds, they lost 20% from 2017. The South saved them somewhat. In Mayoral, they lost over 60 mayorships despite the hilarious dispersion of the opposition. They are in danger of getting 0 governorships. But interestingly in councilors (the most "Partidist" election in Chile), they got 30% + 3% of Republicans. Clearly, a lot of their people voted for independents. What has been destroyed today is their current parties, but not their ideological space.

[MRCVzla]

Worth to say, in the local elections, some major municipalities are flipped to the left, Santiago elected a communist mayor (Iraci Hassler, defeating incumbent Jorge Alessandri from Chile Vamos 39-35), while Broad Front won in Maipú (Tomás Vodanovic, defeating controversial incumbent Cathy Barriga -former TV personality and wife of one of the Joaquín Lavín sons, 47-22) and Viña de Mar (the one with the song contest won by Macarena Ripamonti, influenced by Jorge Sharp' reelection in Valparaíso). Evelyn Matthei hold Providencia with 54%.

In gobernatorial runs, were only 3 elected in first round, Broad Front won in Valparaíso and Unidad Constituyente in the southern Aysen and Magallanes. In the runoff, Unidad Constituyente advanced in 11 regions, Chile Vamos in 9, Broad Front in 2 (Santiago and Tarapaca), the Ecologists in Coquimbo and independent candidates advanced in Atacama, Maule and Biobió (in this one was the most voted candidate).

[kaoras]

For Unidad Constituyente/Ex-New Majority/ex-Concertación.

They are dead. They have no project, no vision, and it showed. They have been intellectually and morally bankrupt since the last decade.  If the right was destroyed, Unidad Constituyente was obliterated from the face of the earth. Even La Lista del Pueblo got more votes than them. The country has clearly rejected their legacy.

Christian Democrats with 2 seats are hilarious. They please no one and they presented a lot of politicians relatives, second-tier wanna b politicians, it was a clear recipe for disaster. Their brand was toxic poison in a left-wing environment, probably what dragged down some of their high-quality candidates like Patricio Zapata. They did fine in municipal elections, which is their only solace.

The only analysis possible for PR and PPD is "lol". Those parties have absolutely no reason to continue to exist, but I doubt they will get the memo. Not impossible that they will be dissolved in the next parliamentary elections. Partido Liberal did fine, 3 seats are probably what they expected.

There is a single party that remains standing. The Partido Socialista (PS) got 15 of the 25 Unidad Constituyente seats. Just like in 2017, they were the only ones that survived the obliteration of their political camp. One could have many theories for their resilience, for one, they are perceived to be very left-wing. They have a long story that they can be proud of. My personal theory is that the people within the PS are still able to believe in what they are doing. In the last decade, they could still look up to Bachelet and see that there still something to believe in. That's why they are still able to attract high-quality candidates, and their brand isn't that toxic. But they still have troubles. Lot of them. I was a poll watcher for them and they had a lot of problems getting people (but at least they had people unlike the Other Unidad Constituyente parties) and I was asked "Whose son are you?", they didn't expect that I went there just because of affinity.

But they are probably the only party that could possibly turn around their situation. I was surprised that some of my friends decided to vote randomly for a PS candidate in the councilors. They have a chance to rebuild, but they have to take the chance. Otherwise, the resilience will eventually be depleted.

Unidad Constituyente was shut out from Tarapacá, Antofagasta (those regions are the craddle of the Chilean Left), south west Santiago, and Magallanes. The only place they won more than one seat was my district of Los Rios that elected 2 socialists (an extremely well-balanced pair, they complemented each other).

[kaoras]

Map of the results:



Original post in reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/chile/comments/nefcz3/mapa_resultados_elecciones_convenci%C3%B3n/

[Velasco]

In addition, Pablo Maltes, Jiles' husband, did pretty bad in the RM gubernatorial (5th place, with just 10%).

Ok so uh, given the results, should I worry about Chile becoming a Bolivarian Republic of some sort and West Venezuela in a couple of years? (Given the left holds a 2/3 supermajority)

Or is the Chilean left not a danger in that way?

If you think every country in the world has a danger of becoming something like that.

But I would say that on the contrary, with these results (not only in the convention) Chile has chosen to solve our serious crisis through institutional channels, and that is the beauty. If you start to see the elected members of the convention, the quality if pretty good (with a mix of constitutionalists, academics and members of the civil society).

The thing is that the left is still fragmented and divided, but for the first time, the right don't have the chance to exploit that in order to maintain the status quo.

The Constitutional convention will not be a easy process, the country will experience some tension, but that is actually needed (to avoid another October 18th), but I'm pretty optimist that the final result will be very good and we will have a constitution that will not have all the answers, but will provide the framework to people to solve issues in a way that the current one is totally uncapable.

I'm glad to read you have elected quality members for your constituent assembly, because they are needed to draft a decent constitution. Even if the right is in ruins, as you say the left is splitted in multiple factions and there exists a huge problem to address with your high levels of abstention and Chilean people's diengagement from political affairs
 

[Estrella]

Others here are commenting that Chile is not about to turn into a communist state, and they're right. But the results are still disastrous. Even if the Chilean Left will not be able to fully transform the society, it's a reality that the communists now have real influence and power, and that other left wing groups do as well. Changes, such as a gender parity mandate or an indigenous seats mandate, as well as anti-capitalist changes in the fundamental economic structures, should be expected. The country isn't about to turn into another Venezuela -- but it is a realistic expectation for it to become another Argentina.

This sentence is like the opposite of "arson, murder and jaywalking" Though I'm pretty sure there are people who would be equally incensed by a relatively minor change to the electoral system as by a radical restructuring of national economy. Putting these two on the same level speaks volumes about what American conservatives care about the most, and it's not the economy.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Others here are commenting that Chile is not about to turn into a communist state, and they're right. But the results are still disastrous. Even if the Chilean Left will not be able to fully transform the society, it's a reality that the communists now have real influence and power, and that other left wing groups do as well. Changes, such as a gender parity mandate or an indigenous seats mandate, as well as anti-capitalist changes in the fundamental economic structures, should be expected. The country isn't about to turn into another Venezuela -- but it is a realistic expectation for it to become another Argentina.

This sentence is like the opposite of "arson, murder and jaywalking" Though I'm pretty sure there are people who would be equally incensed by a relatively minor change to the electoral system as by a radical restructuring of national economy. Putting these two on the same level speaks volumes about what American conservatives care about the most, and it's not the economy.

I'd gladly take an indigenous seats mandate if it meant a fully privatized economic system. But the reason I put those first two first is because they're the more likely outcomes, and they matter for the second one. The Chilean left will attempt to rig future elections by establishing electoral changes that benefit them, and from there they can go ahead with other policies.

[kaoras]

Others here are commenting that Chile is not about to turn into a communist state, and they're right. But the results are still disastrous. Even if the Chilean Left will not be able to fully transform the society, it's a reality that the communists now have real influence and power, and that other left wing groups do as well. Changes, such as a gender parity mandate or an indigenous seats mandate, as well as anti-capitalist changes in the fundamental economic structures, should be expected. The country isn't about to turn into another Venezuela -- but it is a realistic expectation for it to become another Argentina.

This sentence is like the opposite of "arson, murder and jaywalking" Though I'm pretty sure there are people who would be equally incensed by a relatively minor change to the electoral system as by a radical restructuring of national economy. Putting these two on the same level speaks volumes about what American conservatives care about the most, and it's not the economy.

I'd gladly take an indigenous seats mandate if it meant a fully privatized economic system. But the reason I put those first two first is because they're the more likely outcomes, and they matter for the second one. The Chilean left will attempt to rig future elections by establishing electoral changes that benefit them, and from there they can go ahead with other policies. For instance, by giving left wing groups 17/155 seats from the get-go (as they did in this election) as "indigenous" seats.

Gender parity is mandated at the list level, it doesn't affect seat distribution between the right and the left. And indigenous peoples aren't left-wing. Rapa Nui is swingy, the 2 Aymara majority communities always give astronomic margins for the right and Mapuche vote the same as the rest of farmers (and Araucanía is the most right wing region of the country). Parties couldn't even run for the indigenous seats! You clearly know nothing about this election or Chile, so stop pulling things out of your ass.

The right won only the Kawéskar seat because they never have bothered to organize between indigenous people and thought they could get seats just by spamming ads on social media. But the other ones aren't militantly nor consistently left wing

[seb_pard]

Others here are commenting that Chile is not about to turn into a communist state, and they're right. But the results are still disastrous. Even if the Chilean Left will not be able to fully transform the society, it's a reality that the communists now have real influence and power, and that other left wing groups do as well. Changes, such as a gender parity mandate or an indigenous seats mandate, as well as anti-capitalist changes in the fundamental economic structures, should be expected. The country isn't about to turn into another Venezuela -- but it is a realistic expectation for it to become another Argentina.

This sentence is like the opposite of "arson, murder and jaywalking" Though I'm pretty sure there are people who would be equally incensed by a relatively minor change to the electoral system as by a radical restructuring of national economy. Putting these two on the same level speaks volumes about what American conservatives care about the most, and it's not the economy.

I'd gladly take an indigenous seats mandate if it meant a fully privatized economic system. But the reason I put those first two first is because they're the more likely outcomes, and they matter for the second one. The Chilean left will attempt to rig future elections by establishing electoral changes that benefit them, and from there they can go ahead with other policies. For instance, by giving left wing groups 17/155 seats from the get-go (as they did in this election) as "indigenous" seats.

I believe is totally reasonable to have some concerns regarding the process and the potential outcome (although I disagree) but I think regarding some points you are not well informed or are misinterpreting.

In the case of indigenous seats, despite that the left was more supportive that the right, there was some consensus regarding the need to give special seats to indigenous groups across the country that were politically marginalized during our history. And you need to understand that indigenous groups are not necessary left-wing or even center-left. It is well-known that a lot of Mapuches support the right (and I would say that most of the people say the right gets a majority of the Mapuches). For example see the results in La Araucania, this is not a region polarized between white/mestizo voting for the right and the Mapuches voting for the left. The same can be said about other indigenous groups. Despite that, it was important to assure them some voice regarding the elaboration of the constitution.

In addition, the government has the data regarding affiliation to indigenous groups (around 15% of the country) so it was easy to establish a fifth ballot for people that wanted to vote in that election, but it was a choice (if you voted in the indigenous ballot, you weren't able to vote for the regular one).

Regarding gender parity, that was one of the most important yesterday's successes as it was implemented to force political groups to look for women in every district, as the argument was that one of the problems regarding participation of women in politics is that political parties weren't interested in looking for them. What happened at the end? The parity mechanism ended up working in favor of men, as there were 17 switches (12 in favor of a man, 5 to women). It worked out great.

Those mechanisms were important to have a Constitutional Convention that were able to be representative (or close) to what is the country (particularly in a country with serious representation's problems). There were also other mechanism regarding people with disabilities (minimum 5% of the list).

Regarding the nature of private/public economy. Don't expect a full state-dominated economy, but expect a lot of discussion regarding rights on water, pensions, nature, health insurance, sexual minorities, plurinationalism and pollution/environment.

[seb_pard]

In addition, seats were taken from other districts to establish indigenous groups seats (were the districts with highest share of indigenous population with more than 3 seats).

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Others here are commenting that Chile is not about to turn into a communist state, and they're right. But the results are still disastrous. Even if the Chilean Left will not be able to fully transform the society, it's a reality that the communists now have real influence and power, and that other left wing groups do as well. Changes, such as a gender parity mandate or an indigenous seats mandate, as well as anti-capitalist changes in the fundamental economic structures, should be expected. The country isn't about to turn into another Venezuela -- but it is a realistic expectation for it to become another Argentina.

This sentence is like the opposite of "arson, murder and jaywalking" Though I'm pretty sure there are people who would be equally incensed by a relatively minor change to the electoral system as by a radical restructuring of national economy. Putting these two on the same level speaks volumes about what American conservatives care about the most, and it's not the economy.

I'd gladly take an indigenous seats mandate if it meant a fully privatized economic system. But the reason I put those first two first is because they're the more likely outcomes, and they matter for the second one. The Chilean left will attempt to rig future elections by establishing electoral changes that benefit them, and from there they can go ahead with other policies. For instance, by giving left wing groups 17/155 seats from the get-go (as they did in this election) as "indigenous" seats.

Gender parity is mandated at the list level, it doesn't affect seat distribution between the right and the left. And indigenous peoples aren't left-wing. Rapa Nui is swingy, the 2 Aymara majority communities always give astronomic margins for the right and Mapuche vote the same as the rest of farmers (and Araucanía is the most right wing region of the country). Parties couldn't even run for the indigenous seats! You clearly know nothing about this election or Chile, so stop pulling things out of your ass.

The right won only the Kawéskar seat because they never have bothered to organize between indigenous people and thought they could get seats just by spamming ads on social media. But the other ones aren't militantly nor consistently left wing

In that case, I apologize if I'm wrong on the indigenous seats. For the gender distribution, it was never my impression that that affected seats, but purely that it was wrong separately -- but is still representative of a broader left shift in structure.

Others here are commenting that Chile is not about to turn into a communist state, and they're right. But the results are still disastrous. Even if the Chilean Left will not be able to fully transform the society, it's a reality that the communists now have real influence and power, and that other left wing groups do as well. Changes, such as a gender parity mandate or an indigenous seats mandate, as well as anti-capitalist changes in the fundamental economic structures, should be expected. The country isn't about to turn into another Venezuela -- but it is a realistic expectation for it to become another Argentina.

This sentence is like the opposite of "arson, murder and jaywalking" Though I'm pretty sure there are people who would be equally incensed by a relatively minor change to the electoral system as by a radical restructuring of national economy. Putting these two on the same level speaks volumes about what American conservatives care about the most, and it's not the economy.

I'd gladly take an indigenous seats mandate if it meant a fully privatized economic system. But the reason I put those first two first is because they're the more likely outcomes, and they matter for the second one. The Chilean left will attempt to rig future elections by establishing electoral changes that benefit them, and from there they can go ahead with other policies. For instance, by giving left wing groups 17/155 seats from the get-go (as they did in this election) as "indigenous" seats.

I believe is totally reasonable to have some concerns regarding the process and the potential outcome (although I disagree) but I think regarding some points you are not well informed or are misinterpreting.

In the case of indigenous seats, despite that the left was more supportive that the right, there was some consensus regarding the need to give special seats to indigenous groups across the country that were politically marginalized during our history. And you need to understand that indigenous groups are not necessary left-wing or even center-left. It is well-known that a lot of Mapuches support the right (and I would say that most of the people say the right gets a majority of the Mapuches). For example see the results in La Araucania, this is not a region polarized between white/mestizo voting for the right and the Mapuches voting for the left. The same can be said about other indigenous groups. Despite that, it was important to assure them some voice regarding the elaboration of the constitution.

In addition, the government has the data regarding affiliation to indigenous groups (around 15% of the country) so it was easy to establish a fifth ballot for people that wanted to vote in that election, but it was a choice (if you voted in the indigenous ballot, you weren't able to vote for the regular one).

Regarding gender parity, that was one of the most important yesterday's successes as it was implemented to force political groups to look for women in every district, as the argument was that one of the problems regarding participation of women in politics is that political parties weren't interested in looking for them. What happened at the end? The parity mechanism ended up working in favor of men, as there were 17 switches (12 in favor of a man, 5 to women). It worked out great.

Those mechanisms were important to have a Constitutional Convention that were able to be representative (or close) to what is the country (particularly in a country with serious representation's problems). There were also other mechanism regarding people with disabilities (minimum 5% of the list).

Regarding the nature of private/public economy. Don't expect a full state-dominated economy, but expect a lot of discussion regarding rights on water, pensions, nature, health insurance, sexual minorities, plurinationalism and pollution/environment.

Thank you for your explanation. Why is it the case that there is such a broad consensus on indigenous representation?

[kaoras]

It's ok, sorry for being aggressive.

[seb_pard]

Thank you for your explanation. Why is it the case that there is such a broad consensus on indigenous representation?

Many factors, but I would say that there is a broad consensus regarding an historic debt to our indigenous people (another problem is what is the debt and how to solve this) and giving them seats was a good idea to make them part of this process.

Also you need to understand there is a special relationship between Chile and the Mapuche people (which is very different to Argentina's relationship with them). A vast majority of the country have some Mapuche blood, which is the result of hundred years of conflict between the Spaniards and the Mapuche. For Chileans Mapuche is a sign of pride due to their resistance against the Spanish empire (Check War of Arauco, which was won by the Mapuche https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arauco_War ).

Assimilation of Mapuche people and other groups started in the late 19th century ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Araucanía ) and then started a decay of indigenous groups culture until the 90s in which the country experienced a revival of their culture, which an increasing share of population identifying as part of some group (went from 4.5% in the 2002 census to 12.8% in the 2017 census).

In addition, there is an ongoing conflict in the Araucania between the Chilean state and some Mapuche groups which has led public opinion to recognize that there is an important problem to be solved.