CIVICUS speaks with Flavia Liberona, executive director of Fundación Terram, about the results of Chile’s presidential election. Fundación Terram is a Chilean civil society organisation that promotes a model of development based on democracy, environmental justice, human rights and transparency.

On 14 December, far-right candidate José Antonio Kast of the Republican Party was elected president in a runoff election with around 58 per cent of the vote, defeating Jeannette Jara. The result means a major change in Chile’s political leadership following four years under a progressive government.

What factors explain the shift to the far right seen in the presidential runoff?

The runoff result can’t be explained by a single cause, but rather by a combination of political and social factors. One of the most significant was the change from a voluntary voting system to compulsory voting. This brought in a large number of people who weren’t that informed or involved in political debate and whose concerns weren’t necessarily reflected in campaign proposals.

Added to this are negative perceptions of the outgoing government. Many people feel there’s a lack of leadership, particularly from the Frente Amplio party, which came to power promising to promote profound changes that many think it failed to deliver. Frustration and disappointment ended up impacting on its electoral performance.

In recent times, the public agenda has been dominated by issues such as crime, drug trafficking and migration, displacing other long-term discussions focused on education, the environment, health and inequality. Insecurity is a first-hand experience among poorer people, and this favoured a discourse of order and control capitalised on by the far right.

What were the main differences between Jara and Kast’s campaign pledges?

Although both represented opposing political positions, they shared a key position on economic and productive matters: the promotion of investment through the expansion of extractive activities, such as mining and salmon farming. This approach maintains a development model that prioritises economic growth without substantially questioning its environmental and social impacts.

There were more differences in emphasis and tone than substance. Neither candidate addressed productive alternatives or the cumulative effects of decades of environmental degradation, despite Chile facing a severe water crisis, increasingly frequent forest fires and deep environmental inequalities. Nor were there any clear proposals to address structural problems such as access to water, zones sacrificed to development and weak environmental enforcement.

On human rights, the contrast was more discursive than programmatic. Kast focused his campaign on the idea of institutional collapse and the need for an ‘emergency government’, while Jara tried to distance herself from the ruling party with a more social approach. However, for a significant part of the electorate, neither platform managed to connect with everyday concerns or offer comprehensive answers.

How did civil society try to put the environment and human rights on the agenda?

Terram, together with other organisations, tried to raise awareness of these concerns by publishing a document proposing the adoption of minimum commitments: to respect current legislation, avoid setbacks and strengthen transparency. Unlike in previous elections, we received no response from either campaign, reflecting the lack of interest in opening a dialogue on these issues.

Faced with this silence, we promoted communication actions on social media to remind society that the environmental crisis is not secondary and is key for any agenda relating to development, security and wellbeing. Even so, it’s extremely difficult to compete for space in a public debate dominated by crime and migration.

What are the civic space implications of the election result?

The result opens up a scenario of great uncertainty. While we don’t expect a total closure of civic space, regional experience shows that governments focused on order and state efficiency can gradually advance restrictions on people’s participation and the work of civil society organisations, imposing greater administrative requirements or controls that hinder public advocacy.

For organisations working on the environment and human rights, such as Terram, there is a risk that rapid investments will be prioritised over socio-environmental guarantees, which could intensify conflicts between communities, businesses and the state.

What should civil society do given this new scenario?

Many advances in rights, including environmental rights, depend on legal reforms that require majorities in Congress, which will be difficult with the current balance of power. It will therefore be essential to strengthen alliances, highlight risks and maintain public pressure to prevent setbacks.

Chile has a civil society with organisational and technical experience. The challenge will be to maintain that strength in a more adverse political context, defending existing democratic spaces and remembering that environmental protection and human rights are not sectoral issues, but fundamental pillars of any democratic project.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.