RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – After two years of political vertigo and hours before a transcendental ballotage that can be resolved by one vote, Chile has at least one certainty: from now on, it will be a more polarized country.
This political novelty, the exclusion from the decision-making process of the two grand coalitions that have occupied the center of power since the return of democracy, will not only generate profound internal changes but may also redefine the place in the region of a country that for years was considered a model of political and economic stability.
With more or fewer nuances, during the governments of the Concertación and the center-right coalition, there was a certain consensus to manage foreign relations as a State policy. Still, the new scenario of polarization may now change things. If between Sebastián Piñera and Michelle Bachelet, there was an ideological distance, between José Antonio Kast and Gabriel Boric, there is a direct abyss.
“In more and more countries, there are official and opposition parties of different ideological extremes, which makes dialogue and consensus and state policies very difficult. And that particularly affects foreign policy, because you have governments that subordinate it for domestic issues, for example, to seek support in the partisan bases or in the countries of the region that have governments of the similar ideological symbol”, says to La Nacion Francisco de Santibañes, vice-president of CARI.
De Santibañes illustrates how this process affected regional integration with Mercosur, which became a State policy of the member countries beyond the parties in power. Still, as the years went by, this was lost. In the same way, organizations promoted by left-wing leaders, such as Unasur, and by right-wing governments, such as Prosur, appeared, which lost continuity when the ideological sign of the governments changed.
“It is a phenomenon that is increasingly present in the region, and that is hindering relations between countries. And in Chile, something similar is likely to happen. It is already more difficult to reach consensus in domestic and foreign policy, and it may affect Argentina. If Kast wins, perhaps it will be more difficult the dialogue with Alberto Fernández due to the greater ideologization of foreign policy and easier the dialogue with Bolsonaro, which is logical”, concludes De Santibañes.
In the same vein, in an article published in Foreign Affairs magazine, Paul J. Angelo, a specialist in Latin American studies at the US think tank Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), states that “no matter who wins, Chile’s polarized election will jeopardize the country’s role as an intermediary in favor of democracy in Latin America”.
Angelo notes that Chile was a guarantor of the peace accords in Colombia over the past few years, exercised strong leadership in negotiations to democratically resolve the crisis in Venezuela, was a major contributor to UN peacekeepers in Haiti and led the creation of the new regional body Prosur. However, “neither Boric nor Kast seem inclined to continue this tradition of regional leadership,” he writes.
During the campaign, internal tensions within Boric’s coalition came to light after the Communist Party endorsed the election of Daniel Ortega. The presidential candidate responded to his partners sharply and said that in his eventual government, “the commitment to democracy and human rights will be total, without endorsements of any kind to dictatorships and autocracies, no matter which bothers”.
The episode may be a foretaste that Boric will have to balance foreign policy. “Boric is likely to join Argentina and Mexico in the quest for regional non-interference, which may embolden Latin American autocrats rather than isolate them,” reckons Angelo.
On the other hand, Kast framed himself within the wave of anti-globalization leaders, made it clear that Chile’s interests will be above those of the region, and anticipated, as Donald Trump proposed, that he will seek to defund some OAS and UN agencies.
In addition, the positions of both candidates could affect Chile’s reputation as one of the countries with the best business climate in the region. On the one hand, Boric promised to review several free trade agreements, among them the one signed with the United States in 2003, which may anticipate some friction with the White House.
On the side of Kast, like Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, he promotes the free market but questions environmental policies and threatens to withdraw Chile’s climate commitments, which could be an obstacle for future agreements, as is happening in the negotiations between Mercosur and the European Union.
From a more symbolic point of view, the election may also reinforce or contradict the narrative that placed Chile as the example that capitalism can work in Latin America, a region with a long tradition of disbelief in this economic system, or on the contrary, give arguments to those who believe that the neoliberal model did not correct inequality.
“Chile was an example of capitalism, it produced growth and helped to reduce poverty and marginally to reduce inequality, not as much as expected and probably that is what generated the discontent of many”, says to LA NACION, the Chilean political analyst and professor at New York University (NYU) Patricio Navia.
“If Boric manages to make a successful government that advances faster in economic growth and the reduction of inequality, then he will be an example for the rest of Latin America. On the other hand, if he wins and leads a government that produces little growth, he has debt problems, inflation problems, economic stagnation, unemployment, and increased poverty. People will long for the years of the Concertación”, adds Navia.
Juan Negri, director of the International Relations career at Di Tella University, points out that “Chile is a country that has been a model not only of economic stability and growth, but also of certain political stability, so this election will generate in the Latin American political debate even more emphasis on what the lack of political legitimacy of the ruling classes and the new wave of anti-system leadership is implying”.
“I believe that Boric’s triumph, especially outside Chile, will strengthen the most anti-capitalist discourses”, he adds.
However, he clarifies that in his opinion, Kast’s triumph would be more significant in terms of impact since it can give a new impulse to the new right-wing without complexes that have been bursting in recent years in several countries, boosted by the triumphs of Trump and Bolsonaro.
“In a context of a Latin America going through economic problems and in some countries with a lack of legitimacy of the political class, I think it would imply a symbolic strengthening of rather right-wing alternatives”, Negri closes.
Finally, and to add more complexity to the scenario, whichever candidate will have the limits imposed by the Constituent Convention. Unlike the constituent processes of the last years in countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador, in which the presidents put together their constitutions, in the Chilean case, the new Magna Carta may become a corset for whoever is elected.
“The most important thing we are going to have next year is not the new government, but the text of the new Constitution that could radically change the economic model in Chile. Beyond what the next president wants to do, if the Constitutional Convention says ‘the private pension system is over and we are going to have a public pay-as-you-go system’, then it doesn’t matter what the government wants to do, because the Constitutional Convention will establish the new policies for the country”, concludes Navia.
With information from La Nacion