The recent election of José Antonio Kast as Chile‘s president signals a notable shift to the right in Latin America,a region increasingly grappling with anti-establishment sentiment. Political science professor Javier Sajuria attributes the outcome to a broader regional trend-following recent elections in Brazil, Bolivia, and Argentina-and the growing prominence of ultraconservative ideologies. in an analysis, Sajuria details how Kast’s success reflects not merely domestic dissatisfaction, but a broader realignment of political forces, raising questions about the future of Chile’s democratic institutions and its approach to key social issues.
The recent election of José Antonio Kast in Chile signals a broader shift toward the right in Latin America, fueled by anti-establishment sentiment and a growing wave of ultraconservative ideologies, according to political science professor Javier Sajuria. The outcome, while surprising to some, reflects a regional trend of incumbent leaders failing to maintain power, from Brazil to Bolivia and Argentina.
Sajuria, a professor at Queen Mary University of London who has observed the rise of right-wing movements in Europe for fifteen years, described the result as “an expected triumph.” He attributes Kast’s success not only to regional dissatisfaction with current governments but also to the increasing prominence of far-right politics.
While Kast is a traditional right-wing politician with roots in the UDI party, Sajuria argues he can be categorized as part of the ultraright due to his ideological positions and connections. “One frames Kast within the ultraright due to ideological stances and his connections,” Sajuria explained. “Just because a politician comes from a certain sector doesn’t preclude the possibility of movement. The most interesting case is Viktor Orbán in Hungary: he entered government with Fidesz as a moderate party, and moved his government and his party towards the ultraright.”
Sajuria points to Kast’s consistent positions on issues like abortion, the legacy of the dictatorship, and same-sex families, even as he has suggested a willingness to prioritize other concerns. “He has said that he hasn’t changed his opinion, but that he will worry about other things. But the truth is that he maintains those positions.”
“What unites the ultraright is the anti-immigration sentiment and an ultraconservative stance in terms of values, and Kast has both.”
According to Sajuria, the defining characteristics of the ultraright are anti-immigration sentiment and deeply conservative values – both of which Kast embodies. He noted that Kast founded the Republican Party and until 2024, served as director of Political Network for Values, “an organization that travels the world promoting the criminalization of homosexuality, the criminalization of abortion, and the reduction of reproductive rights.”
Kast also participates in international networks like CPAC, held in Hungary and the United States, where he interacts with figures such as Giorgia Meloni, Viktor Orbán, Nayib Bukele, and Donald Trump. Sajuria believes Kast’s political alignment is more closely aligned with European ultraright leaders like Meloni, describing him as “a little more moderate in form, but not in political positions.”
While the economic positions of the ultraright vary in Europe, Sajuria says they are “openly neoliberal” in Latin America. He also highlighted the unique context of immigration in Chile. “In Latin America, immigration is not an issue, except in Chile.”
Chile has experienced a dramatic increase in its immigration rate over the past twelve years, rising from 2% to over 9% between 2012 and 2024. This growth far exceeds the immigration rates of most other countries in Latin America and worldwide, which typically remain below 3.5% or 4%. Sajuria attributes the issue to a lack of effective integration policies by both the Piñera and Boric administrations. “What has the state done to integrate these people?” he asked. “Immigrants – including myself – do not live distributed throughout the population in the same way as the rest of the population. One generally feels safer living in spaces where there are other immigrants. And that presents particular challenges to school communities, health services, and public services. And in Chile there was no recognition of that, but rather an anti-immigration logic.”
The election results also raise questions about the responsibility of the current government. Sajuria suggests the Boric administration misread the outcome of the previous election. “I think they read the result of the election incorrectly: they read it as a mandate to move the country to the left or to a much more progressive space, instead of reading it as a rejection of what José Antonio Kast represented at that time.”
He specifically points to the government’s handling of immigration as a key misstep, arguing they fell into the same rhetoric used by the ultraright. “This is not a problem only of this government; it also occurred in the Piñera government. And the current government has had a discourse that is quite difficult to swallow, particularly for migrant communities. Perhaps they expected this to be a more friendly government, and it has not been.”
This approach, Sajuria contends, played directly into the hands of the right. “When we are all convinced that immigration is a problem, people will likely prefer those who have always identified immigration as a problem to solve it, and not those who are just now starting to talk about it as a problem.”
The same dynamic, he argues, applies to concerns about public safety. “When one looks at the legislative record, this is the most efficient government there has been in terms of enacting laws to give more power to the state in security. When one reviews the crime indicators in Chile, it is true that crime has increased. However, Chile is still one of the 4 or 5 safest countries in the region statistically, but it is the country where people live with the most fear. And one wonders: what did the government do to see that? There should be a public policy logic not only to reduce crime, but to make people feel safe. And that has not been done.”
Sajuria believes the biggest loser in the election isn’t the government, but the traditional right. “In that sense, they are the ones who will suffer the most and the ones who will have the hardest time rebuilding.”
He attributes this to the government’s handling of the constitutional plebiscite. “In the case of the Boric government, I think it deflated in the constitutional plebiscite.” He suggests the administration should have considered alternative approaches to the process. “This is a problem that has been going on since the first year of government, from which they never recovered.”
Sajuria also believes the government misinterpreted the previous election results as a mandate for a shift to the left, rather than a rejection of Kast’s policies. “And the risk today is that, while this is a major blow to the left, they read it as if the country has completely moved to the right, instead of reading it as a rejection of what the government represented. I argue that the biggest losers are the center-right, and I think it is important to make this point.”
He explains that during the 2021 runoff, both the traditional right and social democracy placed conditions on their support for Kast and Boric. “In fact, Sichel did not openly support Kast, and there were people from the Christian Democracy who did not openly support Boric. That did not happen this time. In Jara’s case it happened much earlier, due to a primary. But in this second round we saw the center-right completely giving all the support without any conditions to Kast. And that means a renunciation of ideology.”
“Is it more acceptable today to support Kast than in 2021? Probably. But I would say that it is not because Kast has “moderated”, but because the center-right has renounced more democratic values.”
Sajuria questions whether the shift in support reflects a genuine moderation of Kast’s views or a decline in democratic values within the center-right. “Is it more acceptable today to support Kast than in 2021? Probably. But I would say that it is not because Kast has “moderated”, but because the center-right has renounced more democratic values.”
He argues that Kast has largely remained consistent in his positions, simply avoiding certain topics. “More than José Antonio Kast moderated, he was silenced on some of those issues, because he hasn’t changed his position. And, of course, the traditional right made the mistake that all traditional rights have made: trying to fight the ultraright on their own turf.”
He cites examples of right-wing leaders focusing on issues like building prisons and praising controversial figures like Bukele. “When one hears leaders of the center-right using that type of examples, it means that the ultraright won the discourse.”
While acknowledging Kast’s more institutional background compared to leaders like Bukele and Milei, Sajuria expresses concern about his potential alliances. “The question one has to ask is: faced with a social outbreak like the one that occurred in 2019, will José Antonio Kast behave like Piñera, or will he behave as we think José Antonio Kast will behave? Piñera was a president who, with all his lights and shadows, prioritized the maintenance and continuity of democracy during a critical period in Chile. I am not so sure that José Antonio Kast would take the same position in a similar situation. And that, for me, is the warning light that one has to have.”
He concedes that Kast will need to govern with Chile Vamos, which could provide a counterbalance. However, he cautions against assuming this will be the case, pointing to the example of the Republican Party in the United States and the lack of internal opposition to Donald Trump.
Sajuria concludes with a warning: “Ojalá yo esté equivocado. Lo digo con absoluta honestidad: no existen democracias exitosas sin una derecha democrática, una derecha dispuesta a aceptar y respetar las instituciones democráticas a toda costa. Y una izquierda también. (I hope I am wrong. I say this with absolute honesty: there are no successful democracies without a democratic right, a right willing to accept and respect democratic institutions at all costs. And a left too.)”
