Please do not rely on Wikipedia-type sources for everything. The constitution of 1980 was designed to be a document reconstituting the state. It was designed to slow sudden political changes - checks and balances all over. Within it were the rules for the transition from military government, including the plebiscite of 1988 and civilian elections. The proposed constitution was resoundingly accepted. These are facts. When you say that it was designed to keep Pinochet in power, you are in part correct: it was designed to allow military government for eight years, with the possibility of renewal of mandate for another period, if the popular will agreed. The popular will accepted the constitution, but did not agree to renewal of the mandate. The transition went along as set out in the constitution. Case closed.
With respect to allowing the president - any civilian president - the power to close congress: First, you are wrong - the authority was granted a president to end the session of the House of Deputies. The senate, no. This item was introduced due to the belief that the historically weak Chilean executive compared to a radicalized legislature was thought to have been one of the causes of political instability in the country. (I am not entirely convinced of that interpretation, but many think so.) And you might want to note that this item was not a particularly important point when the junta was in charge. It was meant to secure future presidential authority in case of a sitting legislature disturbing the peace, but it did not allow for permanent suspension of the legislature.
Of course, once Pinochet was out it was amended what, nine times? Ten times? I understand that's removed a lot of the excesses.
Wikipedia (or whenever you're getting your information) does not mention what those excesses were, do they? One "excess" was to allow "institutional senators" - non-popularly elected senators that would represent the political concerns of the courts, armed forces, ex-presidents, etc. Institutional senators essentially acted as a brake on any radical change - requiring a super-majority to do things. This was extremely conservative, in the old sense. Was that an excess? No, but maybe it was bad law. But it's mute point because this rule was amended according to the processes stipulated in the constitution itself. The other "excesses" were similarly conservative - and the amendments have essentially been made to grant political authorities quicker turn-around time.
When you say "once Pinochet was out" - it is not that he was overthrown by popular revolution. He was voted out. He left. Funny that.
She's also a socialist. Y'all casting about for another Pinochet to save you again?
That comment displays more ignorance than I can attempt correct at the moment. Let's simply note that while Bachelet is a member of the Socialist party, she did wear black today. And she seems quite content - happy even - to direct without much difficulty one of the most free-market governments in the world.
Look, if you're against Wikipedia sources, what sources are you basing your info on?