Why José Antonio Kast won Chile’s election, political analyst explains: Video

According to Isabel Castillo, a political scientist and professor at the Faculty of Government at the University of Chile, the result reflects a combination of structural factors rather than a sudden ideological shift to the right. Castillo, who is also a researcher at the Centre for Studies of Conflict and Social Cohesion, analysed the outcome in an interview with Global South World, arguing that the result reflects a combination of structural factors rather than a sudden ideological shift to the right.

Security, migration and the economy as decisive issues

Castillo explained that the campaign was shaped by a narrow set of issues that dominated public debate. “This campaign was dominated by two or three strong issues on the agenda,” she said, highlighting security, particularly organised crime, alongside migration and the economy. While these concerns are shared across society, Castillo stressed that Kast was especially effective in placing them at the centre of the political conversation and framing them as urgent priorities.

Post-pandemic fatigue and a sense of national decline

According to Castillo, the prominence of these issues cannot be separated from the aftermath of the social unrest and the pandemic. Economic pressures, increased migration and the failure of progressive agendas in the constitutional process generated widespread exhaustion. Although she acknowledged that “all economic indicators have tended to stabilise,” she pointed out that the dominant perception during the campaign was that “the country was in a bad direction,” a narrative that Kast successfully capitalised on.

A campaign focused on rejecting the government

Rather than promoting a broad ideological programme, Kast centred his campaign on criticism of the government. “That was the centre of the Kast campaign,” Castillo explained, adding that it “focused mainly on attacking the government.” Issues on which he lacks majority support were consciously avoided. Castillo noted that this was Kast’s third presidential campaign and that his approach reflects a learning process, particularly in sidelining topics such as gender, abortion and same-sex marriage, where Chilean society broadly supports existing rights.

Strategic moderation and a narrow governing agenda

This selective focus allowed Kast to present what Castillo described as an “emergency government”. According to her analysis, the campaign outlined a tight agenda aimed at reducing public spending, strengthening security and addressing migration. By avoiding divisive cultural debates, Kast was able to expand his appeal without directly confronting widely held social positions.

Punishment vote rather than ideological endorsement

Castillo cautioned against interpreting the election outcome as a clear ideological mandate. She underlined the difficulty of separating genuine support for Kast from a broader tendency to vote against the incumbent administration, noting that his decisive second-round result does not reflect his actual level of backing. Kast, she recalled, secured only “23 or 24 percent” in the first round, meaning that the 58% he obtained in the runoff was largely the product of electoral dynamics rather than broad ideological support. When asked whether the result reflected right-wing conviction or voter punishment, she concluded that “it is difficult to say,” pointing to dissatisfaction with the government as a decisive factor.

A victory shaped by context, not consensus

Overall, Castillo’s analysis points to a victory driven more by circumstance than by consensus. Kast’s success was shaped by effective agenda-setting, strategic restraint and widespread discontent, rather than enthusiastic alignment with his ideas. The election result, she concluded, reflects a political moment defined by rejection and fatigue, rather than a unified ideological shift within Chilean society.