From design to practice in deliberative constitutionalism: lessons and challenges from the Chilean constitutional process (2021–2022)

The Chilean Constitutional Convention (2021–2022) provides a rich case study for examining the challenges and limitations faced when implementing deliberative constitutionalism principles in practice. Despite incorporating innovative elements such as gender parity and reserved seats for indigenous peoples, the process revealed significant tensions between deliberative aspirations and their practical materialization. Through theoretical analysis and literature review, we identify three critical dimensions where the gap between design and practice manifested: institutional configuration, deliberative legitimacy, and citizen participation. The findings demonstrate that formal innovations in representation did not translate into effective deliberative conditions, with 93% of citizens reporting being uninformed about participation mechanisms and 68% considering their expectations unfulfilled. The experience highlights how institutional design focused primarily on descriptive representation while failing to establish necessary conditions for substantive democratic deliberation. This study contributes to deliberative constitutionalism theory by identifying specific challenges in translating theoretical principles into practice, particularly regarding the relationship between formal inclusion and effective deliberation. The Chilean case suggests that successful implementation of deliberative constitutionalism requires attention not only to institutional design but also to the substantive conditions that enable genuine public reasoning and sustained citizen engagement in constitutional dialogue.