Chile’s recent presidential election-a win for far-right candidate José Antonio Kast-marks a meaningful shift in the nation’s political landscape and reflects broader rightward trends across Latin America. This outcome, however, stems from more than just regional or global forces, but rather a complex interplay of societal anxieties and a desire for stability following years of upheaval. New research reveals how deep-seated fears from the 2019 social unrest and a perceived abandonment by the political establishment fueled support for kast and the rise of a new right in Chile.
Chile’s recent presidential election, which saw the victory of José Antonio Kast, reflects a broader trend of right-wing gains across Latin America and globally. The outcome wasn’t simply a result of global shifts or media manipulation, but rather a deep-seated response within Chilean society to perceived threats and a search for stability, according to analysts.
Créditos imagen de portada: Víctor Huenante / Agencia Uno
The rise of the far-right in the region and around the world stems from a complex interplay of economic and cultural factors. A key element is a process of deglobalization, fueled by the lingering economic difficulties following the 2008 financial crisis and increased migration from poorer nations to wealthier ones. These developments have fostered a sense of national nostalgia and a conservative turn towards traditional values – family, nation, and religion – seen as providing security in the face of uncertainty and insecurity.
However, local dynamics played a crucial role in Kast’s success. New right-wing movements effectively tapped into the fears and, eventually, the hopes that emerged in the wake of the 2019 social unrest and the subsequent constitutional convention, transforming those sentiments into a compelling political option.
2019-2020. THE COUNTER-MOVEMENT TO SOCIAL UNREST AND REJECTION
Understanding the recent presidential election requires looking back to the period of intense social upheaval in 2019. A 2020 study conducted with colleagues at the Centro de Estudios de Cohesión Social COES revealed that fear was the primary driver of mobilization among those who opposed the protests and favored rejecting the proposed new constitution. Interviewees consistently described the unrest as a period of violence, chaos, and disruption that threatened their daily lives, personal safety, and family stability. Direct experiences with clashes, looting, property damage, and economic hardship fueled participation in counter-mobilizations and support for the “Rechazo” position. This fostered a desire to restore social order, creating a clear divide between those perceived as instigating the unrest and those seeking to contain it. The “Rechazo” stance was framed as a way to prevent “a transfer of power to those leading the country towards chaos,” with explicit references to historical precedents and crises in other nations like Venezuela.
A central aspect, and one that would strengthen the emerging new right – with Acción Republicana playing a prominent role under the leadership of José Antonio Kast – was the perception of abandonment by the political establishment, particularly the traditional right, but also by segments of the left.
The study participants expressed disappointment with the traditional political class, from both sides of the spectrum, for failing to adequately defend their principles during the social unrest and constitutional process. This sentiment solidified a narrative centered on defending the existing constitution, the prevailing social model, and ultimately, the idea of order over chaos. This narrative embraced a call to national identity – perceived as under threat – and the importance of patriotic symbols, also seen as vulnerable.
THE SOCIAL UNREST AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS AS A BREAKING POINT
Further research conducted in 2024, alongside Manuela Badilla and Nicolás Villarroel, with supporters of far-right groups and parties, confirmed that the 2019 social unrest and the constitutional process were critical moments of political awakening for this sector. For many participants, especially those previously uninvolved in politics, these events were not viewed as legitimate demands for social justice, but as threats to order, stability, and basic moral norms. They reframed the unrest as “criminal outbreaks,” associating it with violence, looting, and symbolic destruction of the country. This interpretation legitimized a turn towards the far-right as a defensive response to a nation perceived as collapsing.
The support for the far-right also solidified as a break from the conventional right, which this sector viewed as ambiguous, cowardly, or betraying its principles. The signing of the 2019 constitutional agreement by right-wing parties was repeatedly cited as a symbolic act of betrayal.
In contrast, the far-right was valued as a space of moral clarity and ideological consistency. Supporters emphasized that it “says what it thinks,” even when facing social costs. This appeal to authenticity – speaking “political incorrectness” without guilt – was central to building subjective attachment to this sector.
Unsurprisingly, central themes in this narrative included insecurity, crime, and immigration from poorer countries. Fear of crime, a sense of state abandonment, and feelings of vulnerability in daily life formed a shared diagnosis of crisis. Immigration – particularly from impoverished or crisis-ridden nations – was integrated into this diagnosis as an explanation for social deterioration. This wasn’t merely abstract discourse, but rather accounts of local conflicts, informal economic competition, and disruptions to routines and cultural norms. From this perspective, the far-right appeared as the only force willing to offer drastic and unambiguous solutions.
Consequently, the far-right began to coalesce around a desire to recover traditional values and a “lost normality.” This active defense of traditional values – particularly the nuclear family, authority, order, and the nation – wasn’t seen as ideological choices, but as threatened moral foundations. Nostalgia for a past “normality” – a more predictable, secure, and homogeneous country – articulated a narrative of loss that legitimized rejecting profound social transformations. In this context, the far-right was conceived as a restorative project, capable of “recovering Chile.”
Perhaps most interestingly, these groups transitioned from negative emotional experiences of fear and threat to positive feelings of love, pride, and belonging by finding community within the new right. Contrary to views that reduce the far-right to negative emotions, we observed that support for this sector is also fueled by positive emotions. Love for family, nation, and one’s own culture emerged as a legitimate driver of political action. These emotions were even strategically mobilized in campaigns like the “Rechazo” constitutional effort, where the discourse of love was explicitly opposed to the anger and resentment attributed to the left. Thus, adherence to the far-right is not only reactive, but also affirmative and emotionally rewarding.
They also resent being stigmatized as “fascists,” recounting experiences of losing friendships or being silenced in public spaces. These experiences reinforced an identity as a morally just but misunderstood minority. Paradoxically, this exclusion strengthened commitment to the far-right, as militant spaces functioned as communities of recognition, offering solidarity, affection, and a sense of purpose. Belonging was thus constructed in opposition to a perceived hostile environment.
In summary, José Antonio Kast’s victory wasn’t simply a reflection of the global rise of the far-right, nor was it solely the result of media manipulation. Rather, it was the culmination of a deep process within a significant segment of Chilean society that felt threatened and saw in the far-right an honest promise of recovering a Chile they feared losing.
