This article suggests that the conditions under which the Chilean constitutional process of 2021–22 undertook its task held the seeds of its doom. Constitutional conventions are always tasked with reaching agreements on the controversial allocation of decision rights, and doing so is no simple feat. The Chilean process combined (1) very dispersed preferences regarding the problems the new constitution should solve and the institutions to best enable solutions, with (2) a brief timeframe to allow for agreements to emerge, aggravated by (3) a composition of the Convention that was dominated by independents lacking experience in legislative bargaining, and (4) a severe disenchantment of the population with parties and politics as the backdrop. Together, these hurdles proved impossible to overcome. Despite the notorious political achievements of the Committee we study here, the proposal that came out of Chile’s Constitutional Convention in 2021 was plagued by controversy and a negative perception of the Convention’s work, and was ultimately rejected by the people.

Over the last decade, and throughout the Americas, evangelicals have strongly mobilized in defense of socially conservative agendas or against so-called “gender ideology,” sparking general and academic interest. Much less is known about progressive evangelicals. Using the unique juncture presented by the constitutional process in Chile, we study the politicization of a progressive evangelical identity and ask when these religious groups mobilize. We argue that intra-denominational competition for evangelical identity has played an important role in progressive evangelical mobilization, and more specifically the wish to differentiate themselves from conservative evangelicals, introduce a distance from the political right, and show the internal diversity of the community. This process occurs in response to an initial (conservative) politicization of religion. Drawing on campaign materials, surveys, and interviews, we provide evidence for this argument highlighting that policy preferences and theological interpretations are core differences among both groups, sparking countermobilization.