Fair Observer’s Video Producer Rohan Khattar Singh and political consultant Erik Geurts provide a deep dive into Chile’s recent political transformations. They analyze the socioeconomic factors, the impact of the 2019 mass protests and the dynamics of the 2025 presidential election. Geurts argues that while the country boasts a stable economy, deep-seated income inequality and pervasive frustration with moderate political parties led to a societal upheaval in 2019, fueling the search for radical alternatives.

Chile’s unique economic landscape

Khattar Singh begins the conversation by asking Geurts to quickly summarize what makes Chile unique. Geurts explains that Chile is an interesting case due to its relatively high development rate, boasting one of the highest GDPs per capita in South America, second only to Uruguay. A significant differentiator is the formal economy: only 30% of the population works in the informal sector, a stark contrast to Peru and Bolivia, where that figure ranges between 70% and 85%. Chile also possesses the best universities in Spanish-speaking South America and a generally good educational system.

However, Geurts notes that Chile shares similarities with other Latin American nations, particularly its reliance on exporting minerals and foodstuffs. Furthermore, Chile is exceptionally dependent on one single mineral — copper — making it the world’s largest copper producer. Critically, despite its economic success, Chile suffers from high unequal income distribution, demonstrated by a high Gini coefficient of 430, which is higher than neighboring countries like Peru, Uruguay or Argentina. While the outside world views Chile as an “economic miracle” with high growth rates, better education and healthcare, Chileans themselves often feel they could be doing better, especially given the high cost of living and the limited opportunities for low-income people.

The frustration of 2019 and political polarization

Khattar Singh steers the conversation toward the drastic political changes since the 2019 mass protests. Geurts details how this social upheaval came unexpectedly while the country was under a conservative center-right president. The protests were triggered by an increase in public transport costs, quickly expanding beyond Santiago to include students, workers, the unemployed and poor people across the countryside. The core issue was widespread frustration and the demand for more from politics.

Historically, Chilean politics had alternated predictably between a center-left bloc (like former President Michelle Bachelet) and a center-right bloc (like former President Sebastián Piñera). Voters grew frustrated because they saw little difference between the two main blocs and felt that their votes led to “nothing happening”. This frustration triggered a kind of polarization, leading people to turn toward extreme political views.

On the left, this brought a “new kid on the block,” Gabriel Boric, a student leader during the upheaval who later became president. On the right, the more liberal center-right shrunk, while a more radical right-wing party, the Republican Party of current presidential candidate José Antonio Kast, gained strength. Geurts also highlights the emergence of even more radical figures, such as Johannes Kaiser, a libertarian who wants to slash the government and crack down on crime.

On the left, while the candidate Janet Hara is a communist, Geurts offers a nuanced view, explaining that her track record as a labor minister shows her to be quite moderate. She was highly effective at brokering deals with opposition parties to achieve significant policy goals, such as reducing the workweek from 45 to 40 hours and establishing a basic retirement schedule for poor people.

The 2025 election and mandatory voting

Khattar Singh notes that the 2025 presidential election, which ended its first round on November 16, and will culminate in a runoff on December 14, has fundamentally been shaped by the anger and dissatisfaction following the 2019 mass protests. Geurts explains that voters are “on the move,” seeking more radical options because they believe the center parties have failed to deliver change. Currently, electoral priorities are focused on the crime rate, immigration and unemployment, topics more strongly addressed by the right.

A major factor influencing the results was the introduction of mandatory voting, which was a consequence of the 2019 events. Previously, less than half the population voted, but with mandatory voting, the turnout nearly doubled. Geurts points out that the new voters are often those more alienated from politics, less interested in complex proposals and thus more likely to vote for “simple solutions”.

This environment fostered the rise of third-party candidates like Franco Parisi, a populist who tried to distinguish himself as neither a communist nor a fascist. Parisi proposed simple solutions, such as eliminating value-added tax on medicines and lowering politicians’ incomes, and used populist tactics like calling career politicians a “cast”.

Regarding the global perception that Chile has swung structurally to the right, Geurts warns Khattar Singh that news often simplifies complex situations. While the vote currently favors the right due to immediate priorities, Geurts argues that structurally, the center-left and center-right voters are usually balanced (around 50% each), and the vote shifts based on current priorities.

Contrasting visions for Chile’s future

The presidential runoff pits Kast against Hara, offering Chileans a complex choice. Geurts details their sharply contrasting political leanings:

— Hara represents the traditional left, emphasizing protection for the poor, investment in healthcare and education, increased taxes on the wealthy and subsidies for the disadvantaged.

— Kast represents the far right, advocating for a better environment for private enterprise, relaxing labor laws and lowering taxes for companies.

Their approaches also diverge significantly on the critical issues of crime and immigration. Hara proposes more technocratic solutions, such as establishing intelligence services to track the money to reduce crime, acknowledging that these measures take time to bear fruit. In her migration work, she aims to help migrants adapt to Chilean society.

In contrast, Kast proposes radical, immediate and “Trumpian” measures. He wants to significantly reduce migration, proposing 2,000 flights to remove illegal immigrants (who would pay for their own tickets), and suggesting excavating a ditch along the northern border, utilizing the military and police for enforcement. Geurts suggests that if the population seeks immediate, radical solutions, they might favor Kast.

Potential for political deadlock and regional trends

Khattar Singh expresses concern that even if Kast wins, he could face a political deadlock, as his party lacks a congressional majority. Geurts confirms this, noting that Kast and his allies (the center party of Piñera and Kaiser) would fall short of a majority in the House of Representatives and hold only half the seats in the Senate. Kast would need to build coalitions, possibly with Parisi’s party. Geurts views this need for cooperation as beneficial for democracy, noting that former President Boric also had to work with moderate opposition to get things done. However, this necessity prevents major structural changes, risking renewed voter frustration and a vicious cycle of political shifts.

Finally, the discussion turns to why such “drastic changes politically” are occurring across Latin America, citing examples like Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador. Geurts argues that domestic factors primarily drive these changes — voters reacting to crises in their own countries, such as Argentina’s deep economic crisis or Bolivia’s lack of money and fuel.

Regarding the increasing prominence of “Trump-like figures” in Latin America (such as President Nayib Bukele in El Salvador and President Javier Milei in Argentina), Geurts advises caution in using the caricature, noting that figures like Milei and US President Donald Trump differ significantly in power and economic policy. However, he notes that leaders like El Salvador’s Bukele have gained popularity by effectively addressing major problems, such as crime. Geurts concludes that a common frustration pervades reasonably wealthy and democratic Latin American societies: people do not feel progress, witness widespread corruption and see poverty reduction stall. This leads voters to seek radical solutions, sometimes from the populist left but increasingly from the populist right, particularly since many left-wing populists have “messed up with the economy”.

Khattar Singh ends the conversation by emphasizing that the mandatory voting requirement has significantly shaped the outcome and will determine Chile’s future.

[Kaitlyn Diana edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.