Chile is at an inflection point. The election of José Antonio Kast, a politician whose ideology treads uncomfortably close to the darkest chapters of Chile’s history, has thrown not just Chile but all of South America into a state of charged speculation. The question is simple yet alarming; how far right is Kast willing to take Chile? And just as crucial in the age of a resurgent Trumpism, how dangerous could his presidency be for the rest of the continent?
Kast did not rise in a vacuum. His ascent is a backlash against years of leftist governance, economic frustration after pandemic shocks, and deep societal divides exacerbated by protest movements and political polarization. He skilfully channelled anxieties about crime, immigration, and cultural change into an electoral triumph that has many observers worried he could push Chile well beyond the conservative mainstream.
Let’s be clear: Kast is not a re-enactor of Augusto Pinochet, at least not in the literal sense. He does not openly advocate for dictatorship or military rule. Nor does he promise to abolish democratic institutions. But that’s precisely the danger: the drift toward authoritarian instincts doesn’t need tanks in the streets to matter; it only needs the erosion of norms and the weakening of the checks and balances that safeguard democracy.
Kast has made clear his admiration for certain elements of Chile’s military regime in the 1970s and 80s. He has waffled on human rights abuses committed under Pinochet and has sometimes framed them as necessary evils in the fight against communism. For many Chileans, that historical relativism crosses a line; it signals a willingness to legitimize repression if it serves political ends. In a region where the ghosts of authoritarianism still stir in Argentina, Brazil, Peru, and beyond, that is not a trivial matter.
In policy terms, Kast’s platform leans heavily on law and order, cultural conservatism, and neoliberal economics. He promises to roll back regulations he sees as stifling growth, to cut taxes, and to empower the private sector. On crime, he has pledged harsher penalties and expanded powers for police. On social issues, he stands firmly against abortion, gender-based reforms, and progressive education policies.
Chile has the legacy of the dictatorship etched into its psyche. Memories of torture, disappearances, and political purges are not academic; they are individual and collective wounds. Many Chileans, particularly the younger generation who came of age ignorant of the dictatorship’s everyday terror, view Kast’s overtures toward Pinochet as alarming revisionism. They see in him a politician comfortable with the language of extremes, even if he stops short of full authoritarianism.
This is where the real fear lies, not in the outright return of a Pinochet-style regime, but in the normalization of illiberal tropes under the veneer of democracy. Kast could very well preserve formal democratic institutions while pushing them into deformation: delegitimizing courts that check executive power, attacking critical media as purveyors of “fake news,” and cultivating a narrative of “the people” versus “the corrupt elites.” Many authoritarian leaders in history have followed this exact playbook. The danger is not tanks, but terminological erosion, where democratic language covers illiberal substance.
And because Chile has long been considered one of South America’s most stable democracies, its political trajectory matters regionally. A rightward shift under Kast doesn’t operate in isolation; it reverberates across borders already strained by polarization. In Argentina, the pendulum could swing further right as voters react against leftist policies. In Brazil, Bolsonaro still looms as a symbol of hard-right governance. Even in Peru and Colombia, where political volatility is the norm, the specter of emboldened conservatism fueled by Chile’s example cannot be ignored.
Throw into this mix the presidency of Donald Trump in the United States, a leader with his own history of flirting with authoritarian rhetoric and undermining democratic norms and the constellation becomes even more concerning. A Trump presidency amplifies right-wing leaders in Latin America who see in him a model or patron. Elected officials gain confidence when their ideological compatriots hold power in Washington; coups and crackdowns seem less risky when the global superpower looks away or offers tacit support.
Under Trumpism’s hemisphere, leaders like Kast could feel emboldened to push boundaries, especially on issues like immigration, trade, and security cooperation. They might read that stance as a green light to confront international human rights bodies, reverse progressive reforms, and redefine civic liberties. The institutional safeguards that have kept nations like Chile anchored could fray under sustained pressure from populist nationalism.
Yet, it is also worth remembering that Chile is not Peru, nor is it Venezuela. Its civil society is robust, its judiciary independent, and its people politically engaged. If Kast’s government overreaches, it will face resistance from protest movements, from courts, from media, and from within his own coalition. Chile’s vibrant street politics, which helped bring about constitutional reform debates and forced reckonings with inequality, remains a powerful counterweight.
Still, what keeps political watchers up at night is not the likelihood of a repeat of the 1973 coup. It’s the subtle, creeping normalization of illiberalism that chips away at democratic resilience. Kast’s presidency might not end in tyranny but it might very well make authoritarian ideas respectable again in South America. And in an era when democracy’s fragility is on display from Kyiv to Islamabad, that risk is far too great to dismiss as merely speculative.
Chile’s destiny under Kast will not be Pinochet redux. But it could be something more insidious: a slow drift toward a politics where dissent is disparaged, institutions are weakened, and the price of stability is compromise on fundamental freedoms. In a Trumpian hemisphere, that’s a future none of us should be comfortable betting on.
No comments:
Post a Comment