Once the results of the voting intention polls carried out in February by the Universidad Nacional (UNA) and the Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR) were published, doubts about political preferences for the second round of the April 3 presidential elections seem to have been resolved. dissipated.
Both show a comfortable lead of more than ten points in favor of Rodrigo Chaves, of the Social Democratic Progress party, over José María Figueres, of the Liberación Nacional party.
These results, which show a notable decrease in the undecided number, which now stands at 15%, confirm the results of the first poll that was carried out for the newspaper La República, which gave Chaves 49% of the voting intentions compared to Figueres’ 33%. , which very few analysts took seriously.
Now, these numbers are 43% and 30%, according to the UNA, and 46.5% and 36%, according to the UCR.
This has created surprise and alarm among many observers, who wonder about the causes of this strong preference in favor of Chaves.
An important fact is that the competition takes place in a context in which the public opinion of voters shows a high rate of rejection of candidates. According to the UNA survey, practically half of those consulted do not like any of them, but even so, the majority say they will vote.
The causes of rejection differ according to the candidate.
According to the UCR poll, Figueres is guilty of alleged corruption in the ICE-Alcatel case during his presidency – 47% of those interviewed say that this background influences “a lot” their voting behavior.
For his part, Chaves is questioned over a complaint of sexual harassment he faced while working at the World Bank. This subject influences “a lot” for 38% of respondents and does not influence at all for 40% of them.
In other words, Figueres’ questioning of corruption weighs significantly more than the accusation of sexual harassment against Chaves. This is related to Figueres’ negative image, which is around 49%, compared to a negative image of 27% for Chaves.
On the other hand, observers agree that the favorable inclination towards Chaves is related to the marked dissatisfaction of ordinary people with Costa Rica’s social and political order.
There are even those who portray the candidate as a Donald Trump-style savior messiah. A hasty deduction that deserves to be contrasted.
It is true that in the United States there was also a rebellion of the people against the elites, something that can be seen in Costa Rica today.
However, Chaves presents a very different program and political ideology, based on “modern social democracy”, as stated on his platform.
On the other hand, the candidate’s assertive manner and his planning to circumvent institutional obstacles to undertake the necessary measures are questioned, but this is precisely what his voters are asking for: someone who is capable of overcoming the institutional obstacle on which the insulting status quo.
In this context, it is relevant that Chaves’ party has only 9 deputies out of a total of 47, something that suggests a virtual contradiction between its strong presidential initiative and the need to negotiate in the future, if it wins.
The fear in political and cultural circles in this regard could be minimized if the other factor that favors Chaves were overcome, which is the sharp division of the most relevant political forces.
It may be that part of society decides to choose him because of his rejection by the elites, but the high intention to vote in his favor also stems from the slippage of votes from other parties in the first round towards his electoral channel.
There is a high proportion of social-Christian voters and the official Citizen Action Party who have declared they will vote for Chaves, as well as voters from various emerging center forces such as the Progressive Liberal Party, which won six seats in the last election.
Everything indicates that, at the moment, the rejection of the ex-president Figueres is more powerful than the fear of the presumably hyper-presidential behavior of Chaves, although a good part of the cultural and political elites, in a somewhat paradoxical way, tend to caricature him.
It remains to be seen whether the rebellion against the elites and the political division based on old grudges will continue until the end of this peculiar electoral campaign.
