Chile Constitutional Referendum, October 25th 2020

[Velasco]

Not the first time Lavin chooses an odd term to reinvent himself (he did it in 2007 by expressing support for Bachelet, infamously self-describing as "Bacheletista-Alliancista"), and I suspect it won't be the last.

I support the right to reinvention, but there's a limit for such things defined by logic, consistency and common sense. The conversion of someone like Lavin to socialdemocracy would be credible as the result of a long, gradual process. But this is seemingly a blunder or a funny occurrence, like that odd "bacheletista-aliancista" label. I'm trying to imagine Lavin worshipping Bachelet in a little indoor shrine, but it's not easy

[kaoras]

Regarding Jadue and a possible "socialdemocratic reluctance" CADEM did a very interesting poll among leftist voters.

About the image of past presidents, Allende is by far the most popular (81% positive-11% negative). Among the living ones, Bachelet is the only one with a favorable score (72-26), which is quite an indictment of the Concertación era I must say. (Frei-Ruiz Tagle is 35-55 and Ricardo Lagos is even lower at 33-63). Piñera is universally hated (94% negative image)

Asked about the best president Chile has had, Allende leads with 34%, followed by Bachelet at 29%, Aylwin is at 10% (1990-1994), Frei-Montalva at 9% (1964-1970), Lagos 4% (2000-2006), Frei-Ruiz Tagle 1%. (1994-2000).

Leftist voters overall put themselves at a 3 in a 1-10 left-right scale. More interesting is that they see the Socialist Party (PS) at 3,2 as more leftist than every Broad Front (FA) party, despite that the Broad Front clearly markets itself as more leftwing than the traditional parties. This is curious but is actually consistent with previous polls dating back to 2013 and 2009. I mean, I get that people mostly blame the Christian Democracy as the cause of the Concertación not being leftist enough (The DC is absolutely loathed BTW, 2.9 in a 1-7 scale of approval and 5.9 in the left-right scale), but is not like the PS itself has any shortage of Third-Way technocrats within its ranks.

Among party identification, 20% sympathizes with PS, 16% Communist, 7% RD (Broad Front), 5% PH (former Broad Front), 5% DC, 5% PPD, 4% CS (Broad Front).

In a big united opposition primary, communist Jadue has a very large lead. It would be Jadue 34%, Siches 14% (Medical association president), 10%, Beatriz Sanchez (Broad Front), 7% Francisco Vidal (PPD), 7% Heraldo Muñoz (PPD), 5% Goic (DC), 5% Sharp (Former Broad Front), 4% Montes (PS) and many others.

If the Old Concertación held a primary, and the Broad Front + the communist held another, 50% would participate in the FA-PC primary and just 28% in the exConcertación one. This is very divergent with the party ID but speaks that the center-left simply doesn't have any figure that excites voters.

In the FA-PC primary, Jadue would crush everyone with 52% and in the exConcertación one Vidal would lead Muñoz 25-20%.

Needless to say, 97% is going to vote Approve in the plebiscite and 87% want the Constitutional Convention.

So overall, I say that Jadue would have no problem getting the core left vote. Problem is, he needs to get more than that to get elected. He is already moderating himself, saying that "If a communist is elected president, he is not going to be president of the Communist Party, is going to be president of a much broader coalition".

If you have some knowledge of Spanish you can check the full poll here https://www.docdroid.net/sj69nac/especial-izquierda-vf-pdf

[Lumine]

Leftist voters overall put themselves at a 3 in a 1-10 left-right scale. More interesting is that they see the Socialist Party (PS) at 3,2 as more leftist than every Broad Front (FA) party, despite that the Broad Front clearly markets itself as more leftwing than the traditional parties. This is curious but is actually consistent with previous polls dating back to 2013 and 2009. I mean, I get that people mostly blame the Christian Democracy as the cause of the Concertación not being leftist enough (The DC is absolutely loathed BTW, 2.9 in a 1-7 scale of approval and 5.9 in the left-right scale), but is not like the PS itself has any shortage of Third-Way technocrats within its ranks.

It is indeed a curious result, but I think I can see why it happens. The PS has this long post-1990 history of moderating itself while in power, whilst being more radical and positively aggressive in opposition - particularly in rhetorical terms, and in my opinion to the point of irresponsibility -, so it's not surprising some people could percieve them as more determined than the Broad Front in light of its internal division, missteps and u-turns. Plus the Broad Front has moderated itself somewhat after losing some of their most radical characters, particularly the Humanists.

[Former President tack50]

Wait so Chile might elect a Communist in the next election?

That would be both hilarious and extremely surprising in a way. Even considering the downfall of traditional parties you'd normally expect some sort of populist to rise up.

(or is it simply too early to talk about the next presidential election?)

Also while I understand why he is beloved (national trauma and all) I am surprised to see Allende so highly rated. I imagine if you did such a poll during his presidency he'd be less popular?

[kaoras]

It is indeed a curious result, but I think I can see why it happens. The PS has this long post-1990 history of moderating itself while in power, whilst being more radical and positively aggressive in opposition - particularly in rhetorical terms, and in my opinion to the point of irresponsibility -, so it's not surprising some people could percieve them as more determined than the Broad Front in light of its internal division, missteps and u-turns. Plus the Broad Front has moderated itself somewhat after losing some of their most radical characters, particularly the Humanists.

You are right, for example, those "National accords" at the beginning of Piñera term that went nowhere, FA decided to participate but not PS. I just didn't think regular people paid attention to those things. Overall I'm fairly amazed at the relative resilience of the socialist party brand, I guess is a combination of its history, association with Bachelet, and that it still has some links to unions and is still able to attract some people from social movements (Like Mapuche deputy Emilia Nuyado), unlike PPD which is basically a party of 100% bureaucrats.

Wait so Chile might elect a Communist in the next election?

That would be both hilarious and extremely surprising in a way. Even considering the downfall of traditional parties you'd normally expect some sort of populist to rise up.

(or is it simply too early to talk about the next presidential election?)

Also while I understand why he is beloved (national trauma and all) I am surprised to see Allende so highly rated. I imagine if you did such a poll during his presidency he'd be less popular?

I still highly doub it and normally it would be indeed too early to talk about the next election, but Jadue candidacy gets more serious each day and is clear that potential leftist primary voters don't seem to be in a hurry to rally around a more moderate candidate.  Actually winning the election? It will depend on the campaign, but I will believe it when I see it (even though personally I would have no problems voting from him)

Regarding Allende, considering the level of polarization of Chile in 1973, I think that if you polled leftist voters the results would have been more or less the same. My grandparents lived through that period, they were very poor and always said that with Allende they could "eat well and dress well". Their home was also built thanks to his socials programs. They mostly blame the shortages and the economic crisis in the economic sabotage done by the right. My grandmother still hates truck-drivers ever since. She says that Bachelet is the only one that can compare.

[kaoras]

First of all, Could somebody change the title to the actual new date? (October 25th)

Polls of the plebiscite remain static. Criteria Research did a profile of the voters of Approve and Reject.

-Approve overall leads 75-17
-Women (79-12) are more likely to approve than men (71-22).
-18-24 years old approve 88-5. 60+ years are more likely to Reject, but still Approve 61-30
-Richer voters approve 72-23, while the poorest is 77-11, a gap smaller than one would expect.
-Leftist Approve 96-2, Center 85-9, No affiliation 75-10. The Right rejects 32-57.

Reject is "clustered among the rich, rightists and elders"

In other political news, since announcing its candidacy Evelynn Matthei has irrupted in the polls and I'm pretty sure she would crush Lavin in Chile Vamos Primary.

The opposition meanwhile continues in its normal state of permanent disarray. Progressive Convergence (PS-PPD-PR) wants a broad primary for mayoral and gubernatorial elections among all the opposition (deadline is in a few days), but Broad Front (FA) wants to compete in some communes led by the traditional left and plainly think a primary isn't convenient for them electorally. A FA deputy even came up with a the Galaxy Brain take that if there are primaries, the loser shouldn't be obligated to endorse the winner. Most parties think that in the end, they will just reach some limited accords of omission in some communes (Mayors is a FPTP election).

Also, the Communist Party claimed that a recent report on Humans Right Violations in Venezuela is a US complot, which is just idiotic but expected from them. Is for things like this that I don't see a path for Jadue to the presidency. Though the double standard is astonishing, nobody cares about China nor nobody is permanently asking Lavin (which appears daily on TV) about right-wing dictatorships, Pinochet or, you know, Piñera's Human Rights abuses.

[seb_pard]

Wait so Chile might elect a Communist in the next election?

That would be both hilarious and extremely surprising in a way. Even considering the downfall of traditional parties you'd normally expect some sort of populist to rise up.

(or is it simply too early to talk about the next presidential election?)

Also while I understand why he is beloved (national trauma and all) I am surprised to see Allende so highly rated. I imagine if you did such a poll during his presidency he'd be less popular?

The Communist Party isn't a traditional party. Yes, it was founded in 1922 and has been part of many governing coalitions during the country's history, but is total different entity. First, the party isolated from the political process from 1990 until Gladys Marin's death. They were (and are) very critical of the transition, so they don't have to pay the costs other political parties have. And despite that, the party worst result was 3.2%, which is not bad. This connects to the second point. The party is a basically a cultural movement, is composed of families in which all members are communists and the party strongly encourage its members to participate in every possible social organization. And they have been very successful at that (see the protests of 2006, 2011 and well-now they have Jadue which is not a protest leader, but is leading a political project in Recoleta that many Chileans see as a role model).

The main enemy of the party is its sectarian nature. Their response on Venezuela is the first of many bad responses Jadue will make. They are very disciplined but that is a problem when inside the party are people that are openly sympathetic to the Maduro regime (although I don't think there are many) and others think this is a trap made by the right and other parties. But as the probability of a strong Jadue candidacy the party will have to make a choice: be more flexible or maintain this strong cohesive culture. Letting its best cards to have their own voice (like Camila Vallejo and Jadue) will not be enough.

I heard from a FA guy that right now the Jadue team is focusing right now in the following: antagonizing the leadership of most of the center-left parties and at the same time getting closer to the bases of those parties. And apparently the bases of PPD and PS are pretty excited about a Jadue candidacy. 

[Lumine]

At the rate things are shaping up I rather doubt they'll be able to stop Jadue in a primary ("they" meaning, in this case, most of the PDC and the leadership of the Convergencia Progresista parties), which lends weight to a potential scenario in which at least one "center-left" candidate makes a separate run for the first round as opposed to broad, unitary primaries (particularly after Jadue's comments concerning the final platform for the candidate being based on the platform of the winner, which really didn't go down well).

In the end I suspect the opposition will be able to sign quite a few pacts and slowly improve their lack of election cooperation, but it wouldn't be surprising in the least if they damage themselves by not going to a large primary and fighting the first round with several candidates.

As to Chile Vamos, it really is shaping up to be a Lavin v. Matthei primary fight with J. A. Kast watching from outside to try and (unsuccessfully) take on the victor on the first round. Not impossible PRI and Evopoli end up fielding primary candidates of their own and there's still some would-be candidates left in RN (Ossandón, Chahuán, etc.), but the first two seem very likely to be the truly competitive candidates in the primary. Lavin is certainly doubling down on his rhetorical strategy to appeal to non-partisan voters and he's already open up a major flank after the "social-democrat" debacle, so he's certainly vulnerable against Matthei.

It's weird though. It's almost a year since the events of October and, even though the right should be dead in the water in electoral terms due to Piñera dragging it down to hell, the whole thing still feels like it could be competitive (even winnable in a scenario of left-wing division and a damaged Jadue as the final opposition candidate). I suppose we'll see how much truth there is in that and whether Chile Vamos can preserve at least a third of the vote in the upcoming contests to serve as a base, but it would really be a testament to incompetence if the Chilean left managed to blow the presidential election.

[kaoras]

Yeah, the municipals and Constituent elections above all will be the key. If the right manages to get its historic third of the vote, then it could theoretically win the presidential contest thanks to the seemingly endless ineptitude of the left.

Even if Chile Vamos+Kast don't get to the magic third, the division of the left will probably mean that they will win handily in the number of mayors and get a high % of seats in the convention.

[seb_pard]

Yesterday started the political ads for the referendum (2 times a day, mandatory for every channel). One ad is at 12:45pm and the other is at 8:45pm (one for the first question and other for the second question, every position has 7 minutes and 30 seconds)

First (Constitutional Convention or Mix Convention)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q66vZZslB0
Starts with the Mix convention

Second (Approve or Reject new constitution)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY1CKPZTiPE
Starts with Reject

A little messy, but funny (I have to say, Reject and Jiles made me cringe).

is gonna be fun

[kaoras]

A little messy, but funny (I have to say, Reject and Jiles made me cringe).

is gonna be fun

Oh come on, The evangelicals saying that you are literally Satan if you want to change the Constitution is among the funniest pieces of propaganda I've seen in years.

Other political news:

-The deadline for municipal and regional primaries is September 30th. The main stumbling block for a united opposition primary is FA, which only wants omission pacts. Progressive Convergence is frenetically calling for primaries among all parties, but in the end, I'm almost sure there won't be any kind of inter-coalition primary in the opposition.

-Cadem released a poll that shows Matthei easily defeating Lavin in a Chile Vamos' presidential primary. It would be Matthei (UDI) 41%, Lavin (UDI) 28%, Sichel 10%, Desbordes (RN) 9%, Felipe Kast (EVOPOLI) 9%.

-RN president, Mario Desbordes, is facing an internal challenge from old guard Carlos Larraín, which could end in an anticipated internal election this year. Larraín says that Desbordes has taken RN too far to the left and is dismayed at how "someone so pinochetist like him could want to change the constitution" (Desbordes is personally for Approve). I'm not an expert in the Right internal factions (Lumine could help here) but It appears to me that RN is divided between a "social right" factions (which is more economically populist and slightly more moderate socially) and a hardline conservative faction which is indistinguishable from UDI (Well, RN and UDI are separate parties in the first place due to petty internal infighting from the '80s but that's another story)

[Lumine]

Both campaigns are certainly doing an excellent work of persuading people to vote for the other option. Still, even if the "Approve" ads are cringy as hell (at times inappropiate as well), the "Reject" campaign isn't even attempting to put forward a semi-coherent argument. Increasingly confident I'm not going to regret voting "Approve" next month.

We also have two new (hopeless) presidential candidates: former Minister Alberto Undurraga (PDC), who will spearhead a pointless attempt at becoming the Christian Democrat nominee, and Senator Francisco Chahuán (RN), who is probably one of the politicians you can tell the most is desperate to be President. Chahuán may actually manage to wrestle the RN nomination for the primaries if Senator Ossandón - at this point the last credible party candidate standing - is unable to run, but he'll get nowhere.

[Lumine]

-RN president, Mario Desbordes, is facing an internal challenge from old guard Carlos Larraín, which could end in an anticipated internal election this year. Larraín says that Desbordes has taken RN too far to the left and is dismayed at how "someone so pinochetist like him could want to change the constitution" (Desbordes is personally for Approve). I'm not an expert in the Right internal factions (Lumine could help here) but It appears to me that RN is divided between a "social right" factions (which is more economically populist and slightly more moderate socially) and a hardline conservative faction which is indistinguishable from UDI (Well, RN and UDI are separate parties in the first place due to petty internal infighting from the '80s but that's another story)

RN is a really weird party to describe in ideological terms, even after many of the smaller factions - particularly the economically and socially liberal wing - were purged or left during the last few years. I think that's a fair assessment though, both wings are for the most part socially conservative, but the "social right" (the term "Social Christian" is also used, which has historical precedents) are indeed substantially more populist and open to a more "statist" and less laissez faire - for lack of another term - approach, as well as in favor of the constituent process.

Personality does play a critical factor there though, it's not just a straightforward fight of ideals. RN has always suffered from having too many prominent personalities perfectly willing to tear each other to pieces in public and then craft temporary alliances to take on someone else (unlike, say, the usually firm discipline of UDI, which has only broken down in recent years). And indeed, Desbordes v. Larrain (the sequel to Desbordes v. Allamand) is a good example of that.

[kaoras]

We also have two new (hopeless) presidential candidates: former Minister Alberto Undurraga (PDC), who will spearhead a pointless attempt at becoming the Christian Democrat nominee, and Senator Francisco Chahuán (RN), who is probably one of the politicians you can tell the most is desperate to be President. Chahuán may actually manage to wrestle the RN nomination for the primaries if Senator Ossandón - at this point the last credible party candidate standing - is unable to run, but he'll get nowhere.

The title of most desperate to be president belongs to Jorge Tarud (PPD), which said in 2018! that he was open to run.

Also, Undurraga belongs to the conservative wing of the DC, so it could end up facing Ximena Rincon in an internal which at least could be interesting in showing the strength of the two souls of the party, especially given that many conservatives like Mariana Aylwin and Soledad Alvear have left the party. Or if the division even exists anymore because Goic used to be on the leftist faction and infamously ended up leading the DC al camino propio.

[Lumine]

We also have two new (hopeless) presidential candidates: former Minister Alberto Undurraga (PDC), who will spearhead a pointless attempt at becoming the Christian Democrat nominee, and Senator Francisco Chahuán (RN), who is probably one of the politicians you can tell the most is desperate to be President. Chahuán may actually manage to wrestle the RN nomination for the primaries if Senator Ossandón - at this point the last credible party candidate standing - is unable to run, but he'll get nowhere.

The title of most desperate to be president belongs to Jorge Tarud (PPD), which said in 2018! that he was open to run.

Also, Undurraga belongs to the conservative wing of the DC, so it could end up facing Ximena Rincon in an internal which at least could be interesting in showing the strength of the two souls of the party, especially given that many conservatives like Mariana Aylwin and Soledad Alvear have left the party. Or if the division even exists anymore because Goic used to be on the leftist faction and infamously ended up leading the DC al camino propio.

Oddly enough, I'd actually give the title to Máximo Pacheco, who's also been trying since then. Tarud at least can claim some degree of visibility - at least due to his mandatory comments whenever Boliva does something annoying -, whereas Pacheco was about as far away as possible from being a "candidate" with popular or even partisan support. It was actually said reading about him trying to tour the country to try and raise his still nonexistent profile.

[Estrella]

It's also pretty funny to see Evópoli, a party I'd expect to be full of muh liberal anti-populist technocracy types literally start their ads with "la política es una mierda" lol.

But then my expectations were probably wrong. I'm increasingly confused by the structure of Chilean right - I always assumed that there are starker differences between the two main parties. I thought that RN is a "standard Western conservative party", if quite a bit more right-wing than usual, and UDI is a weird combination of semi-open Pinochetistas and "hello fellow working class weones" people - to use an extremely silly comparision, RN = Romney and UDI = Trump.

Could you explain what are the dividing lines between them?

[kaoras]

UDI being called semi-open Pinochetist is the understatement of the century. They literally have it in its principles declaration. Also, as I explained before, the right isn't really divided about Pinochet, in fact, Pinochet and the defence of human right abusers are probably one of the things that the two wings of RN mentioned above are united in. I guess EVOPOLI technically claims to be non-pinochetist but that never goes beyond lip service. There is the infamous presidential primary debate in 2013 when none of the candidates could get themselves to say the word "dictatorship".

Ok, Rant over, Lumine is the expert here, but your caricature isn't that far off from reality.

[seb_pard]

It's also pretty funny to see Evópoli, a party I'd expect to be full of muh liberal anti-populist technocracy types literally start their ads with "la política es una mierda" lol.

But then my expectations were probably wrong. I'm increasingly confused by the structure of Chilean right - I always assumed that there are starker differences between the two main parties. I thought that RN is a "standard Western conservative party", if quite a bit more right-wing than usual, and UDI is a weird combination of semi-open Pinochetistas and "hello fellow working class weones" people - to use an extremely silly comparision, RN = Romney and UDI = Trump.

Could you explain what are the dividing lines between them?

Most people in Chile think the same way as you, but in reality the differences are not as clear and both parties are the result of a long process (the transition)

Pinochet was very succesful (just as Franco) in united the right, which wasn't at all  a monolithic block. Most of the right merged into a party called PARENA (National Renewal Party, the old RN), of which Ricardo Rivadeneira assumed as president, while Jaime Guzman (from the UDI), Andres Allamand (from the National Party) and Juan de Dios Carmona (the nationalist) assumed as vicepresidents. Before PARENA the UDI already existed as a gremialist movement.

In 1987 a dispute inside the party ocurred and the UDI split it from PARENA (this is an interesting event because from what I heard a brawl ocurred in which chairs were throwed).

The UDI kept its position as the gremialist party (which is an interesting ideology that I strongly despise) but accepted other elements (for example, Evelyn Matthei was member of RN but due to the Piñeragate she left the party and joined the UDI).

Well, PARENA became RN, which is basically a party that contained different right-of-center ideologies (think for example Carlos Larrain, which is more conservative than the average UDI, but also has people like Marcela Sabat). I would say that the party depends more on local leaders, who can be more or less conservative than the average UDI.

[seb_pard]

I have to add the following, in Chile college politics is very important, and when I was a humble undergrad, an interesting event occurred at my alma mater. To put in context, the gremialist movement was founded in my university and the right is pretty strong. Since the 70s the gremialists were a united block but in 2010 the movement split. One member of the gremialists founded its own political movement called Solidaridad (Solidarity) because he though the greamialists abandoned their origins (among other things that I don't know/don't remember).

Solidarity focused a lot on being very conservative on social issues but not that much on economic issues (although they were pretty paternalistic) and were particularly popular among the most right-wing faculties (in addition, these faculties had the most well-off student body).

The thing is that the founder of Solidaridad was Diego Schalper, which is now known for being a right-wing congressman (and very polemic). He is in RN, despite that his natural home is the UDI.

[seb_pard]

We also have two new (hopeless) presidential candidates

The hopeless presidential candidate have become our own archetype, the Chilean version of a Quixote. Man, just to remember Tomas Jocelyn-Holt gives me goosebumps. And to see all the politicians that 2 years before every election announce they candidacy in front of 1 journalist from a regional newspaper is always nice to see.

Although others like Marcel Claude are really dangerous and deserve to be taken to a mental facility

[Lumine]

Right, quite a few things to address:

It's also pretty funny to see Evópoli, a party I'd expect to be full of muh liberal anti-populist technocracy types literally start their ads with "la política es una mierda" lol.

But then my expectations were probably wrong. I'm increasingly confused by the structure of Chilean right - I always assumed that there are starker differences between the two main parties. I thought that RN is a "standard Western conservative party", if quite a bit more right-wing than usual, and UDI is a weird combination of semi-open Pinochetistas and "hello fellow working class weones" people - to use an extremely silly comparision, RN = Romney and UDI = Trump.

Could you explain what are the dividing lines between them?

Evópoli tries, but there's a tendency to try to come up with slogans or powerful phrases that don't hit the mark or are cringe-worthy (that being an excellent example of it). It's original use was actually effective - the context being a campaign to recruit potential candidates who, while having a strong social work background, weren't actively into politics -, but when put in context of the campaign to get a Constituent Assembly which includes sitting members of Congress it clearly ends up being just silly.

As to the Chilean right, it's really difficult to explain because the sector itself has often been unable to understand its own history, let alone express it in coherent terms. The crux of the problem is that the Chilean right has multiple wings and far more diversity than it is generally believed (the difference being that, unlike the left, the right doesn't create a new party every five seconds, it prefers larger parties), and because that diversity entails points of view that are often contradictory, the right is forced to focus on a handful of points in which there's some degree of agreement. To name a few, the Chilean right contains, among others, liberals, conservatives, nationalists and social christians.

This, in turn, dilutes the political and ideological diversity, which is tragically mixed with the fact that the two democratically elected center-right Presidents of the last 60 years (Jorge Alessandri and Sebastian Piñera) were/are technocrats who, while politically inflexible in many aspects, are not truly ideological people at heart (with a clear cut political vision of their own), they're technocrats. Many diverse elements in the Chilean right before 1973 were marginalized or made bids for political control which failed, leading to their departure (the original Christian Democrats, after all, came from the Conservative Party youth), and after 1988 the right had to focus on the few things that appeared to "unite" the sector: free market principles, a defence of Pinochet's legacy (which is still a thing in UDI, some RN conservatives and particularly in J. A. Kast's new party), and so on.

The last decade has seen the revival of some of that ideological diversity both in terms of party factions and in new parties themselves (Partido Republicano, Evópoli, the defunct Amplitud, the PRI as a new ally of the right, some of the groups from Christian Democrat dissidents, etc.), which can make it hard to describe what the right ultimately stands for because it's becoming difficult to find a single principle every single party and factor adheres to. That's one challenge the sector will have to address, because even if they've proven capable to win elections within a specific set of circumstances, it's ultimately pointless if there isn't a political vision with which to govern the country (as Piñera has clearly shown, technocracy should no longer do).

But in general terms:

PRI: PRI is a strange party in that it originated as a Christian Democrat splinter, which has gravitated into a center to center-right point of view. The party explicitly champions regionalism and decentralization, appears to be relatively social conservative, as is clearly more into economic populism. You could describe it as "social christian" (believing in conservative "Christian values" and into populism).

EVÓPOLI: Evópoli was explicitly founded as a liberal party, both economically and socially liberal, and has for the most part attempted to adopt that point of view. However, it is also undeniable that the party base somehow ended up being more conservative - or having a large conservative factor - than the original founders intended, leading to frustrating moments like the defection of a Senator because she was too socially conservative or the party having to ditch a formal "Approve" position in favor of neutrality (which annoyed me greatly, as many of us were convinced the party had a duty to make a stand). You can still rely on Evópoli to defend a liberal point of view, but from an increasingly orthodox position as opposed to the more innovative and centrist spirit from the early years.

RN: RN is a messy combination of personalities and factions, which have nonetheless evolved. Originally it was conservatives v. liberals (which disagreed on values, not economics), until the liberals were mostly purged or left to form the short-lived Amplitud. Then the social christians reorganized themselves and created a strong faction, shifting the axis into a struggle between social christians (economically populist, and reformists) and traditional conservatives (economically liberal, and against the constituent process), in which some isolated factions and individuals - including the few liberals left - take sides. Because of how politics have shifted, the social christians are percieved to me more "centrists", because the country itself has swung even more into an economic interventionist mindset.

UDI: UDI used to be clearly defined as Pro-Pinochet (which meant economically liberal), christian and conservative (in that order). The party attempted to pose as "populist" and had strong connections to some low income neighborhoods due to their social work during the 80's, but it was ultimately an orthodox, discipline and ideologically firm party, which gave them a decisive organzational edge against RN's permanent division. That discipline has been lost as the party was percieved to be moderating itself - in relative terms -, leading to J. A. Kast's departure and the founding of the Partido Republicano, particularly because some groups have adopted economic populism, and a dissident faction has embraced a more socially liberal point of view (Lavin). As things stand, you could define it as the more traditional conservative party, and while still strongly pro-Pinochet, you'll find dissidents willing to criticize him.

PLR: If a Romney would fit nicely in UDI or in RN's conservative faction, a Trump would probably fit in Kast's Republicanos very well. The Republicans are the caricature of UDI's extremism turned into an actual political party, which means they champion extreme social conservatism, economic liberalism, far-right points of view and, naturally, a predilection for culture war rhetoric (they've taken the inspiration on the GOP far enough to now be championing gun rights).

UDI being called semi-open Pinochetist is the understatement of the century. They literally have it in its principles declaration. Also, as I explained before, the right isn't really divided about Pinochet, in fact, Pinochet and the defence of human right abusers are probably one of the things that the two wings of RN mentioned above are united in. I guess EVOPOLI technically claims to be non-pinochetist but that never goes beyond lip service. There is the infamous presidential primary debate in 2013 when none of the candidates could get themselves to say the word "dictatorship".

Ok, Rant over, Lumine is the expert here, but your caricature isn't that far off from reality.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Despite the permanent caricature of the right as still clinging to Pinochet, the fact is it is an increasingly irrelevant factor (which was a steady development in the last few years), and has only appeared to be more prominent because of JAK and this far-right backlash against the belief the right was indeed moderating itself too much, particularly when it came to dealing Pinochet's dictatorship.

That's not to say a large part of the right is still bitterly pro-Pinochet and will be to the bitter end, but it's not a truly unifying factor for any of the parties (you'll find prominent people perfectly willing to denounce Pinochet in UDI and RN, though obviously not to the degree that would be ideal) minus the PLR. As to Evópoli, I haven't seen the party shying away from describing it as a "dictatorship" and being perfectly open about the crimes and abuses committed, so I would also dispute the "lip service" remark.

[Lumine]

We also have two new (hopeless) presidential candidates

Man, just to remember Tomas Jocelyn-Holt gives me goosebumps.

That's one (non-serious) vote I haven't regretted for a second.

[kaoras]

That's not to say a large part of the right is still bitterly pro-Pinochet and will be to the bitter end, but it's not a truly unifying factor for any of the parties (you'll find prominent people perfectly willing to denounce Pinochet in UDI and RN, though obviously not to the degree that would be ideal) minus the PLR. As to Evópoli, I haven't seen the party shying away from describing it as a "dictatorship" and being perfectly open about the crimes and abuses committed, so I would also dispute the "lip service" remark.

EVOPOLI, along with all the right-wing parties, went to the Constitutional Tribunal to include Human Rights abusers in the "Humanitarian law" of parole and said nothing when Piñera pardoned 2 former military members accused of kidnapping and torture during the dictatorship. So yeah, I think we will have to agree to disagree.

[PSOL]

Can someone explain to me what is the exact rationale for the alliance between student leaders and liberals in the Broad Front? I’m confused as to why it exists and hasn’t morphed into either Progressive Convergence or Unity for Change.

[kaoras]

Can someone explain to me what is the exact rationale for the alliance between student leaders and liberals in the Broad Front? I’m confused as to why it exists and hasn’t morphed into either Progressive Convergence or Unity for Change.

The Broad Front (FA) was born as an attempt to unite all alternative progressive forces and create an alternative to the duopolio between the New Majority and Chile Vamos, the traditional center-left and rightist coalitions.

If you look, for example, the Municipal elections of 2016, in the local councilors section there were 7 small leftist lists that together got over 11% of the vote, but the biggest one of them got under 4% of the vote. It was an attempt to unify that vote and create a pluralist, broad, and fresh coalition that could be a third force in the traditional bi-coalitionism of Chilean politics. (And both coalitions were affected at the time by corruption scandals)

Thus the Broad Front was created and gained visibility thanks to realizing nationwide primaries, while the main center-left coalition divided and its presidential candidates struggled to gain visibility. They managed to capitalize a lot of discontent with the ruling New Majority (which was bitterly divided) and thanks to the new electoral law, got impressive results (16% in parliamentary, 20% in presidential).

After Piñera victory, New Majority split 3-way: The Communists allied with Ominami's Progressive Party and left-wing regionalists in Unity for Change. Christian Democrats remained alone and the Socialist, PPD, and Radicals formed Progressive Convergence.

Now, the Broad Front has always been a primary left-wing project, and the liberals are actually a very progressive party without much influence in the coalition. Being very left-wing, FA is very prone to ideological purism and many of them saw the New Majority and its parties as basically the same as the Right, that's why they are so resistant to alliances with Progressive Convergence (let alone the Christian Democrats). They also want to replace the old New Majority parties as the main leftist coalition of the country, and they think if they make alliances with other forces, then its identity could be diluted, that's why they don't unite with the communists (Basically, they think is not electorally/strategically convenient for them)

Broad Front has also suffered several splits, mainly over the signing of the accord for a New Constitution (The more radicals saw it as a betrayal to the people and a pact made without their bases and blablabla), which ended in many parties leaving like The Humanist, Ecologist, etc. But the FA is still divided between those who don't want anything to do with the old left (Comunes, Convergencia Social) and those who are still open to limited alliances (Revolución Democratic, the liberals, the student's leaders you probably know).

I absolutely hate them but I tried to be as impartial as possible.