Last Sunday’s election did not hold any major surprises: José Antonio Kast won by a wide margin. This result implies a clear defeat of the center-left and, therefore, it is relevant to reflect on the problems of the progressive world. However, we must not forget that this election was not only a defeat for the center-left, but also and above all an electoral failure for the conventional right. Their candidate came fifth in the first electoral round with a meager 13%, and the votes of the two far-right candidates (Kast and Kaiser) totaled 38%. For their part, in Congress, conventional right forces have performed poorly, particularly in the Lower House, where the far right has the largest seat in the right sector.
However, practically the entire conventional right celebrated José Antonio Kast’s victory as if it were its own, and everything indicates that a large part of its cadres will be part of the new far-right government. At least so far, there has been very little self-criticism from the conventional right, while there is a great desire to establish an alliance with those who, until recently, called them “cowards”. Given this evidence, it is difficult to think that the conventional right will be the one that emerges stronger from this alliance. The reason is simple: the far-right program will gain legitimacy. As comparative evidence shows, the mainstream right is a “passive accomplice” in the normalization of ideas and practices promoted by the far right.
This does not mean that the progressive world is beyond reproach. On the contrary, it is crucial that the center-left political arc reflects on the successes and failures of the Boric government and the electoral campaign. To carry out this critical exercise, it is very important to have empirical evidence, instead of getting carried away by simple impressions. It is relevant to do less “armchair sociology” and more qualitative, quantitative and comparative studies. Indeed, there are many diagnoses that, although they seem plausible, in practice often have little validity in the data. In order to contribute to this debate, we carried out a survey just before the second presidential round, including several questions to better understand the profile of voters.
Let’s start with a very obvious and simple question: what would have happened if the center-left had not nominated Jeannette Jara, but another political figure? To address this question, we include questions about runoff scenarios between José Antonio Kast and two established figures from the progressive world: on the one hand, Carolina Tohá and, on the other, Tomás Vodanovic. While the former represents political experience and moderation for many, the latter is generally seen as a rising political promise within the Frente Amplio, who stands out for his managerial ability.
As the attached graphs show, the evidence reveals that neither Tohá nor Vodanovic would have been more competitive options, since they theoretically would have managed to obtain 38% of the vote, while Jara mobilized 42% of the electorate. Looking at the survey data, it is evident that Tohá and Vodanovic are more competitive in the upper class (ABC1 segment) and among those who normally voted before the introduction of compulsory voting. It is therefore not clear that other center-left leaders would have had better chances or that they would have managed to reach crucial segments of the electorate to win the election (those who supported Parisi and those who did not participate before the mandatory vote). Seen in this light, it is possible to think that this election was an uphill battle for the progressive world, in large part because of a significant shift in the agenda, which moved from issues focused on inequality to questions of order and security.
For its part, even if it is plausible to think that the “communist” brand did not help Jeannette Jara’s campaign, the data presented here reveal that personalities like Tohá or Vodanovic would have had similar results. With this, we must not minimize the impact of the fact that part of the Chilean Communist Party continues to adhere not only to old discourses (Marxism-Leninism), but also continues to explicitly or implicitly defend dictatorial regimes like Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Without a clear critique of all authoritarianism, it is hardly credible to evoke the far right for its illiberal impulses and its adherence to antidemocratic projects like those of Orbán in Hungary or Trump in the United States.
Beyond the above, the survey data revealed significant differences between voting for Kast and voting for Jara. Even though Kast received about 16% more than Jara (around two million votes), his support is not particularly strong among young people, but rather among people over 40, and there is a significant gender gap among those who voted for him. At the same time, it is interesting to note that the collected evidence indicates that 66% of those who voted for Kast in the runoff are in favor of abortion for three reasons. So what would have happened if the current agenda had not focused on issues such as migration and crime, but on women’s reproductive rights and the provision of social rights by the state?
Seen from this angle, Kast’s genius is partly the weakness of progressivism: while the first was able to construct a story centered on transversal issues demanded by citizens (migration and security), while hiding his cards in a series of other issues where his positions are niche, the world of the center-left has not been able to construct a narrative that clearly connects to the majority positions within society. It is here that the management failures of the Boric government and certain blunders (for example, the pardon for crimes committed within the framework of the social epidemic) took their toll on the one who is considered a figure of continuity.
Without a thorough examination of the chiaroscuros of this administration or careful consideration of how to connect to the desires and fears of the majority, it will be difficult for progressivism or the center-right to govern tomorrow. This is worrying not only for those who are center-left and support the “cowardly right”, but also for democracy. If the far right is the only option on the right’s political council, there is more reason to be pessimistic than to be optimistic about the democratic future. Anyone who has doubts, I invite you to think about the course of the United States.
About The Author
