Chile's Shift to Right-Wing Populism: A Continental Political Realignment

Political populism is defined as lying to and telling people what they want to hear to gain power, then doing whatever the politician wants once in office. This differs from simply being wrong or making mistakes. Donald Trump represents 'real populism' because he made specific promises during his campaign (eliminating H1B abuse, ending cheap labor programs) but abandoned them once elected. The key distinction is between being wrong and telling deliberate lies to manipulate voters. This reveals how populist leaders exploit voter emotions and grievances to achieve power, then prioritize their own interests over campaign promises.

Populism is a political phenomenon recognized by the Cambridge Dictionary as the Word of the Year, characterized by appeals to the common people against elites. The term derives from the Latin 'populus' (people), reflecting its historical emergence from movements like the 19th-century US Populist Party representing farmers against financial elites. Political science recognizes three main approaches: populism as a political strategy for gaining power through simplification, as a socio-economic response to elite-people conflicts, and as an ideological framework emphasizing the 'us versus them' dichotomy. Populism works effectively by exploiting real problems and gaps between elites and the population, offering simplified explanations without real solutions. When populist politicians come to power, they often attack democratic institutions like the separation of powers, arguing these mechanisms hinder the people's true will. This distinguishes populism from direct democracy and demagoguery, which operates within the system.

Populism is defined as the ability to professionally manipulate public expectations and then claim credit for resolving them. Genuine politicians shape expectations rather than merely responding to them. Populists exploit public desires for material benefits by making unrealistic promises, with no upper limit to their claims. Historical examples like Yeltsin's 1993 campaign (23% vote share) demonstrate populist effectiveness. The number of people susceptible to populist rhetoric is approximately equal across all human populations. Political leaders prioritize power retention above all else, which drives their strategic decisions including coalition-building and prolonging conflicts. Understanding these dynamics reveals that political rhetoric often differs significantly from actual intentions, as leaders prioritize maintaining their position through various strategic maneuvers rather than fulfilling campaign promises.

Populism is defined as a majoritarian approach to politics with an authentic connection to the ways in which the working class is struggling. It involves finding majoritarian sentiment around emotional pain, suffering, or happiness of communities and turning that into political action. The key characteristic of populism is its creation of enemies—whether billionaires, corporations, immigrants, or other groups—which makes certain solutions easier to identify than others. This enemy-creation distinguishes populism from other forms of politics and creates both opportunities and challenges for political movements.

The Concertación governments maintained the neoliberal model but with greater social spending, reducing poverty from 40% to 15%. The Pinochet arrest in London in 1998 broke the myth of impunity, leading to multiple judicial processes until his death in 2006. The 2010 magnitude 8.8 earthquake devastated central-southern Chile, killing over 500 people. Sebastián Piñera, the first right-wing president since 1958, faced reconstruction challenges and the dramatic rescue of 33 miners trapped for 69 days. However, his government faced massive student protests in 2011 demanding free education. Michelle Bachelet returned in 2014 with reformist promises but faced corruption scandals and economic slowdown. On October 18, 2019, the social outbreak exploded—the largest protest since the return to democracy. The slogan 'No son 30 pesos, son 30 años' questioned the entire neoliberal model. The protests were massively peaceful but included violence. The Piñera government declared states of emergency and brought out the military for the first time since the dictatorship. In November 2019, Congress agreed to call a plebiscite for a new constitution. On October 25, 2020, 78% voted to approve a new constitution drafted by a convention with gender parity and reserved seats for indigenous peoples. The convention, dominated by independents and left-wing forces, included guaranteed social rights, plurinationality, robust environmental protection, and gender parity. However, on September 4, 2022, 62% rejected the proposal as too extensive and radical. A second constitutional process with a more conservative council drafted a right-wing text emphasizing order, security, and private property. In December 2023, 56% also rejected this proposal. Chile had rejected two constitutions in 15 months, leaving the 1980 Constitution in force. Gabriel Boric, former student leader, was elected president in 2021 at 35 years old, the youngest in Chilean history. His progressive program promised to transform the neoliberal model, increase taxes on the rich, and strengthen the welfare state. Chile today is a country of contrasts—it has the most stable economy in Latin America, is an OECD member with social indicators above the regional average, but also faces persistent inequality, social discontent, discredited political institutions, and unresolved conflicts. The Mapuche continue fighting for recognition, land, and autonomy. Climate change threatens droughts in the center and sea level rise on the coasts. Crime and drug trafficking have increased, generating a sense of insecurity. However, Chile has historically demonstrated extraordinary capacity for resistance and adaptation. It is a nation that survived devastating earthquakes, apocalyptic tsunamis, wars, dictatorships, and economic crises. It is a nation that was born in poverty and geographic isolation but became a regional power. It is a society that suffered one of the most brutal dictatorships in the continent but recovered democracy pacifically. The Mapuche who resisted Incas and Spaniards for centuries left a legacy of dignity and struggle. The founding fathers like O'Higgins and San Martín forged an independent nation. Women like Inés de Suárez, Gabriela Mistral, and the disappeared who never surrendered demonstrated courage. Leaders like Allende who defended their principles until death. Victims of the dictatorship who kept memory of the horrors alive. Students who came out to the streets demanding justice. All of them form the mosaic of Chilean history. Chile is violence and poetry, mountains and sea, desert and ice, dictatorship and democracy, neoliberalism and social protest, development and inequality. It is Pablo Neruda writing immortal verses while the Pacific hits Isla Negra. It is Víctor Jara singing to the people before being assassinated in the National Stadium. It is Violeta Parra addressing arpilleras that tell stories of suffering and hope. It is the miners trapped underground who never lost faith. It is the grandmothers searching for their disappeared grandchildren. It is the students painting murals in Valparaíso streets. It is the fishermen facing the furious ocean every morning. It is the campesinos cultivating fertile valleys. It is the scientists studying stars in the world's clearest desert observatories. The history of Chile has not ended—it continues to be written every day in the decisions of millions of Chileans who work, study, protest, create, and dream. It is an unfinished history of a country that still seeks its destiny between impossible mountains and infinite seas. It is a small country in territory but a giant in resilience, culture, and determination. From the first inhabitants who crossed the Bering Strait thousands of years ago to the young people who today imagine a different Chile, the Chilean history is testimony of the human capacity to survive, adapt, and never surrender.

Chile's current political situation is influenced by the Venezuelan crisis, changes in global power dynamics, and the country's position within Latin America. The Concertación era (1990-2010) represented a unique period where political agreements were achieved through democratic processes, successfully recovering democracy through the ballot box. Modernization processes cannot justify human costs such as deaths and disappearances, establishing that progress must be evaluated by its impact on human dignity and life.

Chile's modern political landscape was shaped by the 1973 coup d'état. On September 11, 1973, the US-backed opposition, led by Pinochet, bombed the Palacio de la Moneda, ending President Salvador Allende's socialist government. Allende committed suicide with a gift from Fidel Castro. The subsequent dictatorship closed the Congress, banned political parties, censored media, and established the Dirección Nacional de Inteligencia, which ordered police to eliminate government opponents. This resulted in over 15,000 assassinated opponents, 164,000 exiles, and 150,000 political prisoners, mostly workers and peasants. Democracy returned in 1988 through a referendum. Modern Chile features an efficient metro system, inaugurated in the 1970s, with over seven lines spanning 140+ kilometers, offering tiered pricing (600-800 pesos) based on time of day.

This extended period traces Chile's political evolution from colonial resistance through modern times. The Arauco War (1553-1598) represented one of the strongest indigenous resistances against European colonization, with Lautaro leading Mapuche forces to victory at Mataquito before his assassination. The war ended with the decisive Mapuche victory at Curalaba in 1598, forcing the Spanish into a defensive strategy north of the Biobío River. The Treaty of Quilín in 1641 formally established this border. Colonial society maintained a rigid hierarchy: Spaniards (peninsulares) at the top, followed by Creoles, mestizos, indigenous peoples, and black slaves at the bottom. The Bourbon reforms of 1700 restricted colonial autonomy and triggered economic discontent. The Treaty of Negrete in 1772 ended hostilities with the Mapuches, while the creation of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata transferred eastern Andean territories to Argentine sovereignty. International events—the American Revolution and Napoleonic invasion of Spain—created conditions for independence. The First Board of Government formed on September 18, 1810, beginning the Patria Vieja period, which ended in 1814 after royalist reconquest at Rancagua. The Battle of Chacabuco in 1817 restored independence under Bernardo O'Higgins and José de San Martín. The New Homeland period concluded in 1823 with O'Higgins' resignation. The Constitution of 1833 established the Republic, followed by the 1829 civil war between liberals and conservatives, which conservatives won. The Conservative Republic achieved significant territorial expansion: conquest of Chiloé, sovereignty over Los Ríos and Los Lagos, and control of the Strait of Magellan in 1943. The 1891 Civil War ended with President Balmaceda's suicide and the establishment of the Parliamentary Regime. The 1924 coup established the Presidential Republic, coinciding with the 1929 global economic crisis. Radical governments emerged in the late 1930s. The 1973 coup led by General Pinochet ended Salvador Allende's presidency, initiating an extreme right dictatorship that dissolved Congress, prohibited political parties, and committed human rights violations (casualties estimated at 10,000-30,000). The 1980 Constitution and 1988 referendum ('NO' vote) began the Transition to Democracy, positioning Chile as Latin America's most prosperous economy with the highest human development index.

Chile has experienced both extremes of political ideology: the left extreme under Salvador Allende's Marxist electoral attempt, which ended with Pinochet's military coup, and the right extreme under Pinochet's dictatorship. Since 1990, Chile has been governed by center-right and center-left coalitions. The current constitutional reform process aims to replace the 1980 constitution, which was established during the dictatorship. This historical context makes Chile's current political developments particularly significant as it represents a potential return to more radical left-wing governance.

Colombia's political spectrum is defined by three main positions: Left (Cepeda) supports government involvement, higher taxes, environmental regulation, and affirmative action. Center (Paloma Valencia) advocates for balanced state participation, mixed economy, moderate taxes, and inclusive peace processes. Right (Abelardo del Esprella) promotes minimal government, individual responsibility, lower taxes, privatization, and law and order. The center is positioned closer to left-wing policies than right-wing policies. Examples from Latin America include Chávez, Maduro, Evo, Correa, and Petro on the left; de la Rua, Frey Ruiz, and Santos in the center; and Bukele and Trump on the right.

The video describes how the political spectrum in Latin America has evolved significantly. Previously, the spectrum was binary: ultra-left (trotskyism) on one end, and everything from center-left to right was considered 'facho' (fascist). Now, there are many more political shades and versions from center to right. This evolution includes the emergence of figures like Javier Milei in Argentina and José Antonio Kast in Chile, representing a new political category that doesn't fit traditional left-right classifications.

The traditional political spectrum in Latin America is ordered as follows: on the left, there is the exaltation of the collective, values of equality and justice, and the state; on the right, there is the exaltation of the individual, liberty, and the market. The more state, collective, and equality desired, the further left one moves, and vice versa.

Contemporary Latin America presents a political spectrum with three main elements: on one extreme, new fascist and shameless right-wing movements; on the other extreme, new radical left movements that are reconnecting with social movements and gesturing toward anti-capitalist and anti-systemic movements; and in the center, a declining center that increasingly loses direction. This polarization creates a more radicalized political landscape where traditional centrist positions are losing viability.

Latin America has a spectrum of left-wing movements ranging from radical to centrist. Radical leaders like Chávez seek to completely reject the past, while centrist leaders like Kirchner and Vargas pursue continuity and gradual change. The majority of Latin American voters reject neoliberal fundamentalism but prefer centrist alternatives over radical approaches.