The potential victory of far-right candidate José Antonio Caste in the second round in Chile, where around 70% of votes in the first round were awarded to right-wing parties, is similar to the current situation in Brazil. The right arrived at the second round in pieces, but immediately moved from second to first at the end of the first round. The left was united, but it did not have the strength to obtain even the expected minimum vote of 30%, even though it came in first place.
The spread of the right-wing group in Chile ends a cycle of a renewed conservative wave in South America, which is already ruled by the right in Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador. In Colombia, there is a possibility of a right-wing victory, although President Gustavo Petro, who cannot be re-elected, still enjoys respectable political power. Since Donald Trump’s re-election as President of the United States, there has been a tendency to coalesce around what critics are already calling “reactionary internationalism.”
In addition to the ideological closeness related to Brazilian Bolsonarianism, there is a common vision between them on fiscal balance and containing spending to ensure economic development. This trend makes the left want to differentiate itself by increasing social investments, which may lead to economic problems in the short term. Conflating fiscal imbalance and social spending, as if they were antagonistic, prompts the left to use fiscal populism to oppose the right, exacerbating the risk of lack of control.
The right-wing trend is seen as a reaction to economic crises, unemployment, frustration with the administration of previous governments, and worsening political polarization, with differing views on development, the role of the state and international relations. In the case of Brazil, even with reasonable economic growth and the unemployment rate at its lowest levels, the specter of an economic crisis in the medium term, as happened with the Dilma Rousseff government, still frightens the population. The need to maintain an interest rate as high as that of Brazil to ensure that inflation does not deviate from official targets would lead to problems in the daily life of the population. Public insecurity is another key factor in the region, and Trump’s campaign against what they call “drug terrorism” is strengthening the right.
Political polarization also leads to fierce ideological conflicts, especially when we remember the “pink wave” that led, during Lula’s second government, to the dominance of leftist governments in the region. Trump’s military pressure to force the overthrow of Nicolas Maduro’s government in Venezuela is making ideological discussion dominate presidential campaigns, with a positive slant to the right. The important change is the lack of personal leaders in these countries, with the exception of Brazil, where Lula and Bolsonaro continue to oppose each other.
On some occasions, the policy of South-South cooperation leads to wrong decisions, as is the case in the BRICS group, when Brazil takes positions in favor of positions such as that of Russia against Ukraine and positions itself as a sympathizer of China in the conflict with the United States. The tariffs imposed by the Trump administration on Brazil forced the Brazilian government to approach the US government, but no practical result has been reached yet.
The concept of efficient management, the greatest weapon used by Sao Paulo Governor Tarcisio de Freitas, has prevailed in the region, especially with the victory of Javier Maili in Argentina. Right-wing governments in South America tend to favor fiscal adjustments, deregulation, privatization, and greater accommodation with the West, while the left places greater emphasis on the role of the state, income distribution, and regional autonomy. The successive losses of Brazilian state-owned companies, reinforced by the Correios crisis, increased pressure on Lula’s government.