Until the second round of elections in Chile, scheduled for December 19, the ultra-rightist José Antonio Kast and the leftist Gabriel Boric must face difficulties to win the center votes.
In third place in the election, outsider Franco Parisi got a good vote (12.8%) in the first round held this Sunday (21), the result of a campaign marked by rejecting the so-called mainstream that has governed the country since redemocratization in 1990.
For political scientist Claudia Heiss, 49, director of the Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Chile, the votes obtained by Parisi represent punishment against the country’s traditional party forces.
In an interview with sheet, the expert points out similarities between Kast, who denies the crimes of the Pinochet dictatorship, and the president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, in addition to predicting more violent protests in Chile, if the ultra-rightist is elected in December.
Did Sunday’s election result surprise you? Yes. Although polls indicated that there would be a second round, the numbers were unexpected. I felt that Kast would get a smaller vote, because he’s been wearing out a lot since the last debate, in which he was confronted by Boric and [pelo candidato de centro-direita Sebastián] Sichel, and without giving very satisfactory answers. He also thought Boric would finish a little ahead of Kast, not the other way around.
But the main surprise was the very good election that the center-right and the right made in Congress. Although the end result points to a divided Senate and Chamber, without a large majority on either side, a greater advance from the left was expected, which ended up not happening.
There was also a change in the electorate that we must observe in the regions. In the last local elections, the right elected only one governor, and now, in the vote for regional councilors, it has come a long way, also creating a new and divided scenario in the administration of the regions.
How to explain the phenomenon of voting by Parisi, who neither lives in Chile nor came to the campaign and the election? Parisi did not expose himself like the others, he was not questioned. There are several topics that we don’t even know what he thinks about. Perhaps this is part of the explanation for your good vote. The other is that it is a candidate who embraced the outsider’s, anti-political agenda. Parisi’s voter is a diminished middle class, vulnerable to the economic crisis, afraid of uncertainty, unemployment, the arrival of immigrants who can take work from Chileans.
It should be noted that there was a good vote in Parisi in the north, where the arrival of Venezuelans and other immigrants is intense and generates tension and fear. In this sense, there is a change, because the tradition in the north of the country is to be more progressive than the south. After all, there are unions linked to mining, and there is a history of claims and labor movements.
Parisi’s speech is very focused on economics, on the idea that everyone can be small businessmen in their own government. And it also has a strong populist element, he said several times that he would distribute money, for example, without explaining where it would come from. Parisi bet on an individualist constituency, which rejects the idea of social and economic solidarity that is so strong in the left’s narrative.
This is an agenda of proposals very similar to Kast’s, isn’t it? No doubt Parisi’s voter would identify more with Kast, in theory. I think it will be easier for your voters to migrate to the far right than to Boric. But there are important differences between the two. Kast is very much associated with traditional politics, with Pinochetism, with a Catholic right. Parisi openly criticizes the political mainstream in which Kast is included — who, despite having abandoned the UDI [União Democrática Independente], still has the image linked to that old right in Chile.
Parisi has not spoken publicly on behavioral issues, his agenda does not touch on moral issues. This is another difference with Kast. We are not sure what Parisi thinks of issues related to diversity, to women’s reproductive rights, for example, while Kast puts a lot of emphasis on showing up against everything related to the so-called “gender ideology”.
These may seem like details, but they also point to the possibility that a part of Parisi’s electorate will not immediately migrate to Kast, either because they are more anti-system voters or not identified with the religious view of politics. It is possible that a portion of that electorate simply abstains from voting, but it is even more difficult for them to feel identified with Boric.
Would it be natural to expect that, now, Kast and Boric will moderate the speech and seek the center voter? Yes, that would be the logic. But the current context in Chile poses a problem for this movement. The fact that Kast and Boric have gone into the second round is a sign that there is a strong rejection of the mainstream parties, that is, the traditional right of the UDI and allies and the Center-left Concertação. This election was a great defeat for those political forces that have predominated since the country’s redemocratization.
Therefore, this strategy of seeking the center can be problematic. Because people showed high rejection of that center. On the other hand, there is room for negotiations with sectors of the parties. That’s what we should see in the coming weeks.
In the case of the center-left, Yasna Provoste [da Democracia Cristã, parte da Concertação] he did not announce immediate support for Boric, as he may be looking for a place in a future government. The rest of your party, yes. the case of Sichel [da coalizão Chile Vamos, da UDI] it is even more complicated, because he ran the whole campaign claiming that he is from a different right, more tolerant, non-discriminatory, that respects human rights and that he does not feel identified with Pinochetismo at all. Sichel and Kast’s economic agendas may be similar, but Sichel works for a modern, liberal right and rejects the archaic, conservative right represented by Kast.
In what way does Kast resemble Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro? Is there a contagion effect or is it an independent phenomenon? They are very similar when it comes to security policies, the idea of militarizing to solve problems, and because they both minimize or relativize human rights abuses that occurred under dictatorships.
The contagion effect has to do with a more international movement, a crisis of the representative system, rejection of the dictatorships of Cuba and Venezuela, and an association with the figure of Donald Trump and the European extreme right, such as Vox, in Spain.
How can this election impact the work of the Constituent Assembly? There are many decisions by the Constituent Assembly that will depend on the new Congress. It will be necessary for lawmakers to approve the extension of the deadline from nine months to one year for the drafting of the Charter, for example. If there is a need to hold plebiscites to settle doubts, as proposed by the constituents, Congress will have to approve and regulate these votes. Afterwards, it will be necessary to convene and hold the plebiscite to approve the drafted Charter and, after all, implement it.
None of this will be viable without the political will of the new president and the new Congress. Therefore, it is wrong to think that one process is completely independent of the other.
Do you believe that there can be new protests like the ones in 2019, if Kast wins? I think not so long and not so peaceful.
There is something that needs to be reinforced about 2019, which is the fact that most of the protests took place in peace, with a voluntary adherence of various sectors of society. If Kast wins, I believe those who will be encouraged to take to the streets to protest will be the most combative protesters. In other words, if there are protests, I believe they will be more violent and more localized.
X-ray
Claudia Heiss, 49
Director of the Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Chile, Master in Political Science from Columbia University and Ph.D. in the same area from the New School for Social Research, in the USA. He was president of the Chilean Political Science Association from 2012 to 2014 and member of the technical committee of the constituent process that gave rise to the Assembly that today rewrites the country’s new Charter.
.
