Chile

Historical Truth and the New Deal with Indigenous Peoples Commission

City/State/Region
Begin – End: 2001 – 2003
Name of organization in charge: Presidencia de la Nación
Type of organization in charge: government
Level: national

Impact

?

Implementation: was the innovation effectively, partially or not put into practice at all?

Fulfillment of Aims: were the goals of the innovation completely, partially or not achieved at all?

Output: has the innovation generated recommendations, initiatives, decisions or policies?

Outcome: if there were a policy output, was it enacted or implemented?

Implementation: yes
Fulfillment of Democratic Innovation’s aim: yes
Output: yes
Policy Outcome: yes

The Historical Truth and the New Deal with Indigenous Peoples Commission has been created in recognition of the need to understand the vision of indigenous peoples regarding the history of Chile and the elaboration of recommendations to construct a state policy that brings together the Chilean society. The Commission is composed of 25 people involved in indigenous issues and has the following functions: to establish subcommittees for each of the peoples, to allow the participation of indigenous citizens, their communities and organizations; to set up a subcommittee on the historical subject, to be integrated by experts from various sectors and trends, as well as by specialists in indigenous issues; to suggest and make recommendations regarding institutional, legal and political mechanisms for the full participation, recognition and enjoyment of the rights of indigenous peoples in a democratic system, developed on the basis of a social consensus and the reconstruction of historical trust.

Institutional design

?

Formalization: is the innovation embedded in the constitution or legislation, in an administrative act, or not formalized at all?

Frequency: how often does the innovation take place: only once, sporadically, or is it permanent or regular?

Mode of Selection of Participants: is the innovation open to all participants, access is restricted to some kind of condition, or both methods apply?

Type of participants: those who participate are individual citizens, civil society organizations, private stakeholders or a combination of those?

Decisiveness: does the innovation takes binding, non-binding or no decision at all?

Co-governance: is there involvement of the government in the process or not?

Formalization: embedded in the constitution/legislation
Frequency: regular
Mode of selection of participants: restricted
Type of participants: citizens civil society
Decisiveness: democratic innovation yields a non-binding decision
Co-Governance: yes

Means

Deliberation
Direct Voting
E-Participation
Citizen Representation

Ends

Accountability
Responsiveness
Rule of Law
Political Inclusion
Social Equality

Policy cycle

Agenda setting

Formulation and decision-making

Implementation

Policy Evaluation