«A Critical Perspective Is Essential»: Interview with Sociologist and Historian Felipe Portales

Original article: «La mirada crítica es imprescindible»: Entrevista con el sociólogo e historiador Felipe Portales By Leopoldo Mujica / Special for El Ciudadano L. L. – Felipe, José Antonio Kast has been characterized as the most far-right and conservative leader in Chile since Pinochet.

What continuities and differences do you see between Kast’s political project and the traditions of authoritarian right in Chile over the past four decades? F. Portales– Indeed, Kast is significantly more right-wing than the late Sebastián Piñera, the other president traditionally considered right-wing since 1990 (serving between 2010-2014 and 2018-2022).

However, rather than indicating a shift toward the right among the Chilean populace, Kast’s election reveals a growing discontent within the majority of Chilean society with what has been presented since 1990 as a center-left alternative aimed at replacing the authoritarian and neoliberal political and economic model established by the dictatorship and sustained under nominal democracy. Thus, after six governments supposedly elected for this purpose (Aylwin, Frei Ruiz-Tagle, Lagos, two terms of Bachelet, and Boric), we see that this model has not only been maintained but deepened. This consolidation has received praise from a myriad of politicians, economists, business leaders, and academics from both national and international right-wing circles.

Among them is the current president of Argentina, Javier Milei, who noted during a private visit to our country that «for us (Argentina), Chile has been a clear example of what needs to be done to sustain economic development over time» and that «both for its healthy relationship between public and private sectors and for its unyielding economic policy, which has persisted despite political shifts, these values enable Chile to escape backwardness and move toward a model of prosperity» («El Mercurio»; 9-8-2024). This aligns with comments made by Jair Bolsonaro’s right-hand man, Onyx Lorenzoni, in 2018, who stated that «Chile is an example for us of a country that established very solid macroeconomic elements, making it entirely different from the rest of Latin America» and that «Chile serves as a model for us, being a country with very well-structured economic foundations» («La Tercera»; 21-10-2018). L.

L. –How do you evaluate the mass protests —the social rebellion of 2019— and the two failed constitutional processes that left Chile without a new constitution? How do you interpret that the cycle of popular mobilization paradoxically ended in the election of the most right-wing candidate in decades?

What does this say about the historical limitations of the left-progressivism alliance in Chile? F. Portales– The failure of the «explosion» or «rebellion» social movement in 2019 was fundamentally due to its spontaneous nature and its incapacity to project itself into a significant political-social alternative.

It failed to generate any organic structure, project, or leadership that could transform the profound social dissatisfaction into effective political power capable of substituting the existing political and social system. Thus, the majority that voted for the creation of a new constitution through a Constituent Assembly was, first and foremost, deceived by a virtual coalition between the right, the ex-Concertación, and the Frente Amplio (which the Communist Party later joined, albeit reluctantly) that prevented that majority from achieving a democratically approved new constitution, since the two alternatives proposed in the plebiscite required a two-thirds majority for approval. Furthermore, the majority sectors («People’s List», independent lists, and Indigenous Peoples) that managed to elect 54 out of 155 seats, which could have pushed the Frente Amplio and the Communist Party (28) to form a strong majority, also did not provide a real alternative due to their lack of cohesion and national project, compounded by the scandalous criminal behavior of some of their leaders.

And one can hardly speak of the second constitutional process, which was a farce from start to finish. L. L.

– During Gabriel Boric’s presidency (2022–2026), how have the government’s policies or omissions regarding social rights, security, the economy, and immigration paved the way for Kast’s rise to power? Is there a historical responsibility of the left for this outcome? F.

Portales– Boric’s government has been a complete failure for those who were hopeful about his campaign promises to advocate for profound reforms of the «Chilean model». From the beginning —regardless of not holding a parliamentary majority— Boric pushed for Chile’s adherence to TPP11 and the Treaty with the European Union, deepening our country’s isolated and subordinated position within neoliberal globalization. Furthermore, he granted half of the lithium rights to Ponce Lerou until 2060; saved private health insurance companies from bankruptcy —in tandem with the right— forgiving them nearly one billion dollars owed to their contributors; and legislatively solidified the pension funds, also in conjunction with the right wing.

Additionally, he militarized Araucanía like never before since 1990 to confront the Mapuche resistance movement and continued a trend established by all governments since Frei Ruiz-Tagle of ignoring international court rulings requiring the Chilean state to compensate the original owners of the assets of the newspaper «Clarín» —seized by the dictatorship— thereby preventing the emergence of a center-left newspaper that could break the duopoly held by El Mercurio and Copesa. L. L.

A critical reading suggests that Boric’s government was gradually taken over by Concertación logics: their negotiation practices, established networks within the state, and a pragmatism that led to immobility. Another possible interpretation is that there was not a takeover but rather a convergence: that the Frente Amplio entered government with no real programmatic break from Concertación and that the similarities ran deeper than the electoral rhetoric suggested. Which of these two interpretations do you believe is historically more honest?

Can you elaborate on the specific role of each actor —the Democratic Socialism, the Frente Amplio, and the Communist Party? Did Boric pay too high a price for the stability of his coalition, sacrificing the potential for a government focused on deep transformations? F.

Portales– I think the most evident demonstration of the Copernican shift experienced by the Frente Amplio was given by Boric himself on November 15, 2019, when he became a key politician in approving the agreement that reinforced the subordination of the entire «center-left» to the Chilean right, with the sadly infamous aforementioned requirement of a two-thirds quorum for approving a new constitution. The deceptive promises that followed were merely a continuation of that policy. The Communist Party, somewhat reluctantly, became an actor supporting its own policy after Jadue’s defeat in the primaries.

Furthermore, «democratic socialism» significantly contributed —according to multiple testimonies— to Boric’s victory in those primaries, and subsequently in the presidential elections, by facilitating his later incorporation into the government and placing it in some of the most crucial positions in his cabinet. L. L.

– Kast received 58. 16% of the vote in the December 2025 runoff, winning by almost 20 points over Jeannette Jara, driven by public concerns over public safety, crime, irregular immigration, and economic recovery. From your perspective as a historian, does this result represent a genuine break in Chile’s political culture, or is it merely the expression of a historical cycle we have seen before in the country?

F. Portales– Only God knows what people will do with their free will! However, it is clear that Kast’s victory may signify the beginning of the closure of a cycle dominated by a «center-left» leadership that made an ideological renunciation (recognized by the principal ideologist of the «transition», Edgardo Boeninger, in his book «Democracy in Chile: Lessons for Governance», PDF, pp.

367-371; stating that this leadership reached a «convergence» with right-wing economic thought, a convergence that it was not politically equipped to acknowledge), accompanied by an adjustment to the administration of power (which has continued to be controlled and expanded by a handful of large economic groups). Additionally, there is the systematic deception of the population enabled by the virtual extermination of mass media that truly represented the center-left perspective, conducted through various covert policies, according to accusations —never denied— made by numerous journalists and directors of these media outlets, including the National Journalism Prize winners Juan Pablo Cárdenas, Patricia Verdugo, and Faride Zerán. L.

L. – Among his first measures, Kast began digging a trench at the northern border and initiated mass expulsions of migrants. From a historical-institutional analysis, do you see risks to the rule of law and human rights in Chile under this government, or do you believe the institutions are solid enough to contain it?

F. Portales– In reality, the excavation of a trench is intended for a limited part of our extensive border with Peru and Bolivia; I do not believe it will have —even if it continues to expand— any major effect in stopping immigration. Moreover, mass expulsions of immigrants is impractical, both physically and economically internally; due to the natural reluctance of other countries to accept them.

The making of demagogic promises in presidential campaigns is not exclusive to anyone! And, of course, Kast cannot affect something that does not exist in our country: a real rule of law since in Chile —one must not forget— the Armed Forces and Carabineros operate independently of the Government, according to the Constitutional Organic Law of the Armed Forces and Carabineros, imposed by Pinochet in February 1990; as acknowledged in 2018 by then-senators José Miguel Insulza and Carlos Bianchi; congressman Jorge Brito, and former Undersecretary General of Government, Jorge Navarrete (in various interviews with CNN Chile) that, since 1990, they have been self-governing. Effective human rights are not honored in Chile, given that several major economic groups directly control the Chilean economy and, indirectly, politics, creating enormous inequality and social injustice —considered the worst in Latin America— which leads to systematic violations of economic, social, and cultural rights.

These violations, among many other serious matters, result in the death of thousands each year on the waiting lists of public hospitals, as noted by Kast and Jara during their last forum on Anatel before the elections: 40,000 by the first and 30,000 by the second! In the wake of the left’s electoral defeat, how do you evaluate the real possibilities of reconstructing a cohesive opposition? Can the Chilean left renew its program beyond the issues that have exhausted it —the constitutional process, security, immigration— and articulate an agenda that reconnects with the majority?

What would be the non-negotiable programmatic axes: structural inequality, the pension system, public health, the Mapuche issue? In that scenario, what role can social movements —student, feminist, territorial— that were the driving force of the 2019 explosion but now seem retracted or fragmented play? Are we facing a left in reconstruction, or a deeper crisis of political representation that transcends it?

F. Portales– We must acknowledge the enormous difficulties we face in effectively substituting the model of society bequeathed by the dictatorship. We still have a “center-left” dominated by a leadership that —no matter how weakened it may be— continues to hold that since 1990 we had «the thirty best years in Chile’s history»… To rebuild a true center-left, it would be essential to first demystify that belief, a very arduous task since mass media controlled by large economic groups find it extremely convenient to maintain the image that there is an authentic left, and that it is dangerous for the existing system.

On the other hand, disillusioning a society is, by itself, a tremendous task. As Mark Twain astutely stated: «It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.