logo
Chile's unhappy success

Chile's unhappy success

Business Times2 days ago
LET'S play a political parlour game.
First question: Which developing country has, since 1990, consolidated a thriving liberal democracy, with free elections and a free press; almost trebled its real income per capita; sharply reduced its Gini coefficient (a measure of income inequality); and climbed up the ranks of the United Nations Human Development Index, so that it is now classified as enjoying Very High Human Development?
Second question: Which developing country had massive protests and riots in 2019; suffers from very low reported trust in institutions; has just elected a member of the Communist Party as the standard-bearer of the ruling centre-left coalition; and, if polls are right, is likely to choose a far-right Trump wannabe in the presidential election later this year?
If your answer to both questions was Chile, you win. The country is successful, yet its citizens are unhappy. Its democracy is the envy of Latin America, yet Chileans do not seem particularly proud of it.
The country's volatile mixture of flourishing and fury holds lessons that apply far beyond Chile's neighbourhood.
The centre-left primary held on Jun 29 illustrates what is at stake. The early favourite was Carolina Toha, an accomplished social democrat who has been a congresswoman, mayor of Santiago, Chile's capital, and, most recently, interior minister in President Gabriel Boric's government.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign Up
Sign Up
Also in the running was Gonzalo Winter, a moustachioed hipster who, like Boric, went from student activist to national leader in just a few years.
In the end, the voters were unimpressed by both of them. Instead, they voted overwhelmingly for Jeannette Jara, a charismatic Communist former labour minister.
Chile's Communists are not any old leftist party. Nearly 40 years ago, when Chile's centre-left unseated dictator Augusto Pinochet in a referendum, the Communists refused to participate; the only way to overthrow the regime, they argued, was by force.
More recently, in late 2019, when almost all political parties signed a pact for constitutional reform in an effort to end street protests, the Communists again stayed away.
They have sided with Vladimir Putin in Russia's war against Ukraine, and have praised Cuba and Venezuela for developing supposedly novel forms of democracy.
It is not an exaggeration to call Chile's Communist Party Stalinist. Yet 60 per cent of primary voters preferred its candidate.
Things are not much different on the conservative side of the political spectrum. The centre-right candidate, Evelyn Matthei – who, like Toha, has been a congresswoman, mayor and minister – is sinking fast in the polls.
Rising fast is the far-right Jose Antonio Kast, who, unlike Donald Trump, speaks in soft and measured tones but who, like Trump, campaigns on a populist, anti-immigrant and anti-woke agenda.
What is irking Chileans?
What ails Chileans? Why are they voting for populists? The conventional wisdom points to crime and immigration. Chile's foreign-born population has risen to nearly one in 10, a change which has brought a predictable backlash. And yes, violent crime, often perpetrated by Venezuelan gang members, has been on the rise.
But that cannot be the whole story. By Latin American and even developed-country standards, Chilean cities remain comparatively safe. And dissatisfaction with politics and politicians was on the rise long before the surge in legal and illegal migration over the last decade.
The other conventional answer is an economic slowdown. The Chilean economy, once the wonder of Latin America, has barely been growing in recent years, and the investment boom of the 1990s and 2000s is long past.
But again, that cannot be the whole story. Chile has escaped the economic instability of other countries in the region, real wages have continued to rise (albeit more slowly than in previous decades), and so has private consumption.
The truth about what ails Chileans is both deeper and more elusive. It begins with a generous helping of anti-elitism. Anything that reeks of the establishment, whether political or business, is automatically suspect.
Jara's appeal springs from her working-class roots, which signal she does not belong to Chile's political establishment.
Populism, whether right or left-wing, amounts to a kind of identity politics: It is always us against them. Chile is no exception. Tribal and divisive politics has turned a few citizens into angry talking heads and has turned off the rest, who cannot stand the noise and the vitriol.
The rules of the political game also bear some of the blame. Chile combines a US-style presidential regime with a European-style proportional electoral system. The result is that presidents seldom have a majority in parliament, leaving them unable to achieve via legislation what they promised on the campaign trail.
You can see why citizens increasingly believe politicians are liars, all talk and no action.
Issues not isolated to Chile
Anti-elitism, tribal politics and frozen democratic decision-making help explain Chile's recent surge in extremism and polarisation. But similar trends are taking hold elsewhere in Latin America, North America, Europe and parts of Asia. The temptation to identify exclusively local causes for global phenomena must be resisted.
Leo Tolstoy was wrong in his opening line of Anna Karenina: Unhappy families can be unhappy in very similar ways. The same is true for unhappy countries.
The shared unhappiness is mostly political, and therefore calls for political solutions. The technocratic illusion – increase growth a bit, reduce inequality some, and all will be fine – must also be resisted.
As Chile shows, countries can grow prosperous while also growing grumpy. It will take more enlightened political leadership than Jeannette Jara and Jose Antonio Kast can provide to reverse that worrying trend. PROJECT SYNDICATE
The writer is a former finance minister of Chile and currently dean of the School of Public Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump Reveals Striking 'Very Powerful Deal' With EU, With Europeans Agreeing to Buy $750 Billion Worth of US Energy and Pay 15% Tariffs
Trump Reveals Striking 'Very Powerful Deal' With EU, With Europeans Agreeing to Buy $750 Billion Worth of US Energy and Pay 15% Tariffs

International Business Times

time2 hours ago

  • International Business Times

Trump Reveals Striking 'Very Powerful Deal' With EU, With Europeans Agreeing to Buy $750 Billion Worth of US Energy and Pay 15% Tariffs

President Trump announced a sweeping new preliminary trade deal with the European Union, under which the 27-nation bloc has committed to buying $750 billion worth of American energy and boosting its investment in the U.S. by an additional $600 billion beyond existing levels. The United States will implement a 15% tariff on the majority of goods imported from the European Union. Trump announced the agreement shortly after holding talks with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at his Turnberry resort. "I think it's the biggest deal ever made," Trump said. The deal will bring much relief to investors who had been reeling under fears of a global trade war. Trump Does It Gain Trump and EC president Ursula von der Leyen X "I think we both wanted to make a deal," the president added. "It's going to bring us closer together. I think this deal will bring us very close together." As part of the deal, Europe also agreed to "purchase a vast amount of military equipment" from the US, though Trump noted, "We don't know what that number is" yet. Trump and von der Leyen shook hands and praised one another for reaching the deal, but remained vague about what the U.S. had given up in return. "The starting point was an imbalance — a surplus on our side and a deficit on the US side," the EU boss said when asked about the concessions Trump made. "And we wanted to rebalance the trade relation, and we wanted to do it in a way that trade goes on between the two of us across the Atlantic." Trump had warned that he would impose a 30 percent tariff on EU nations if the influential trading bloc didn't come to an agreement with the United States. Von der Leyen flew to Scotland to meet with Trump at his resort in an effort to finalize the deal. Just an hour before the announcement, both leaders estimated there was only a 50 percent chance of striking an agreement. Trump's Planned Move Trump and EC President Ursula von der Leyen X Prior to unveiling the deal, Trump indicated that "pharmaceuticals won't be part" in the deal, explaining that his administration intends to take a more aggressive approach to bring drug manufacturing back to the U.S. Von der Leyen praised Trump, calling him a strong negotiator and skilled dealmaker. "And fair," Trump interjected. Trump, during his informal talk with reporters on Sunday, made it clear that he has no plans to postpone the August 1 deadline for his specially designed "Liberation Day" tariffs to begin—despite having pushed it back twice before, To date, Trump has secured initial tariff agreements with the UK, Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia, and the Philippines. He also hinted that his team had recently finalized another deal but did not reveal which nation was involved. Trump currently has a variety of tariffs in place now, including a 25 percent duty on automobiles, aluminum, and steel, as well as a 25 percent tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico that don't meet the requirements of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. He has also recently suggested the possibility of increasing those tariffs on both neighboring countries. In addition, Trump has agreed to a temporary tariff pause with China and has given Beijing until August 12 to finalize a broader trade agreement. Earlier this month, he issued an ultimatum to Moscow, demanding that Russia reach a peace agreement with Ukraine within 50 days or face 100% secondary tariffs on its energy exports—penalties that would apply to countries purchasing energy from Russia.

US, China to resume tariff talks in effort to extend truce
US, China to resume tariff talks in effort to extend truce

CNA

time2 hours ago

  • CNA

US, China to resume tariff talks in effort to extend truce

STOCKHOLM: Senior US and Chinese negotiators meet in Stockholm on Monday (Jul 28) to tackle longstanding economic disputes at the centre of a trade war between the world's top two economies, aiming to extend a truce keeping sharply higher tariffs at bay. China is facing an Aug 12 deadline to reach a durable tariff agreement with President Donald Trump's administration, after Beijing and Washington reached a preliminary deal in June to end weeks of escalating tit-for-tat tariffs. Without an agreement, global supply chains could face renewed turmoil from duties exceeding 100 percent. The Stockholm talks, led by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng, come right on the heels of Trump's biggest trade deal yet, with the European Union accepting a 15 percent tariff on its goods exports to the US and agreeing to make significant EU purchases of US energy and military equipment. That deal struck with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday in Scotland also calls for US$600 billion in investments in the US by the EU, Trump told reporters. No similar breakthrough is expected in the US-China talks, but trade analysts said that another 90-day extension of a tariff and export control truce struck in mid-May was likely. An extension of that length would prevent further escalation and help create conditions for a potential meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in late October or early November. Spokespersons for the White House and US Trade Representative's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment on a South China Morning Post report quoting unnamed sources as saying the two sides would refrain from introducing new tariffs or take other steps that could escalate the trade war for another 90 days. Trump's administration is poised to impose new sectoral tariffs that will impact China, including on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, ship-to-shore cranes and other products. "We're very close to a deal with China. We really sort of made a deal with China, but we'll see how that goes," Trump told reporters before his meeting with von der Leyen, providing no further details. DEEPER ISSUES Previous US-China trade talks in Geneva and London in May and June focused on bringing US and Chinese retaliatory tariffs down from triple-digit levels and restoring the flow of rare earth minerals halted by China and Nvidia's H20 AI chips and other goods halted by the United States. So far, the talks have not delved into broader economic issues. They include US complaints that China's state-led, export-driven model is flooding world markets with cheap goods, and Beijing's complaints that US national security export controls on tech goods seek to stunt Chinese growth. "Stockholm will be the first meaningful round of US-China trade talks," said Bo Zhengyuan, Shanghai-based partner at China consultancy firm Plenum. Trump has been successful in pressuring some other trading partners, including Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines, into deals accepting higher US tariffs of 15 percent to 20 percent. Analysts say the US-China negotiations are far more complex and will require more time. China's grip on the global market for rare earth minerals and magnets, used in everything from military hardware to car windshield wiper motors, has proved to be an effective leverage point on US industries. TRUMP-XI MEETING? In the background of the talks is speculation about a possible meeting between Trump and Xi in late October. Trump has said he will decide soon whether to visit China in a landmark trip to address trade and security tensions. A new flare-up of tariffs and export controls would likely derail any plans for a meeting with Xi. "The Stockholm meeting is an opportunity to start laying the groundwork for a Trump visit to China," said Wendy Cutler, vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute. Bessent has already said he wants to work out an extension of the Aug 12 deadline to prevent tariffs snapping back to 145 percent on the US side and 125 percent on the Chinese side. Still, China will likely request a reduction of multi-layered US tariffs totaling 55 percent on most goods and further easing of US high-tech export controls, analysts said. Beijing has argued that such purchases would help reduce the US trade deficit with China, which reached US$295.5 billion in 2024. China is currently facing a 20 percent tariff related to the US fentanyl crisis, a 10 percent reciprocal tariff, and 25 percent duties on most industrial goods imposed during Trump's first term. Bessent has also said he would discuss with He the need for China to rebalance its economy away from exports toward domestic consumer demand. The shift would require China to put an end to a protracted property crisis and boost social safety nets to encourage household spending.

Trump Calls for Prosecution of Kamala Harris, Beyonce, Oprah Winfrey and Several Others Over 2024 Election Campaign Payouts
Trump Calls for Prosecution of Kamala Harris, Beyonce, Oprah Winfrey and Several Others Over 2024 Election Campaign Payouts

International Business Times

time2 hours ago

  • International Business Times

Trump Calls for Prosecution of Kamala Harris, Beyonce, Oprah Winfrey and Several Others Over 2024 Election Campaign Payouts

President Donald Trump demanded that former Vice President Kamala Harris be prosecuted, along with a few celebrities like Beyoncé, Oprah Winfrey, and Al Sharpton, over payments they allegedly received during the 2024 election. Trump alleged that Harris' campaign paid the celebrities millions of dollars for their appearances, claiming the payments were unlawful contributions meant to promote her unsuccessful presidential run. "I'm looking at the large amount of money owed by the Democrats, after the Presidential Election," Trump wrote on Truth Social Saturday, adding, "These ridiculous fees were incorrectly stated in the books and records. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PAY FOR AN ENDORSEMENT. IT IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL TO DO SO." Trump Attacks Harris Donald Trump X "Can you imagine what would happen if politicians started paying for people to endorse them. All hell would break out." During the 2024 election cycle, Harris' campaign faced backlash over several high-profile payments, including $165,000 to Beyoncé's company, Parkwood Entertainment, for a rally held in Houston on October 26. Oprah Winfrey's Harpo Productions received $1 million for coordinating a livestream event in Michigan, while Harris' campaign also paid $500,000 to Al Sharpton's organization, the National Action Network. Many Hollywood celebrities including pop icon Beyonce have supported Presidential campaign of Kamala Harris X In his Truth Social post, Trump mentioned different figures, though the source of those numbers was unclear. All three celebrities have previously shown support for Democratic candidates. "Eleven Million Dollars to singer Beyoncé for an ENDORSEMENT (she never sang, not one note, and left the stage to a booing and angry audience!), Three Million Dollars for 'expenses,' to Oprah, Six Hundred Thousand Dollars to very low rated TV 'anchor,' Al Sharpton (a total lightweight!), and others." Kamala Harris X "They should all be prosecuted! Thank you for your attention to this matter." No Stopping Trump Trump has made similar accusations earlier too. Back in December, he claimed that Harris' campaign paid the three celebrities for their endorsements, though he gave slightly different amounts. Kamala Harris at the Oprah Winfrey fundraiser YouTube At that time, he alleged that Democrats paid "$11 million, $2 million, and $500,000" to secure the support of Beyoncé, Oprah, and Reverend Al. "Beyoncé didn't sing, Oprah didn't do much of anything (she called it 'expenses'), and Al is just a third rate Con Man," he claimed at the time. Many of the musicians and artists who supported Harris chose not to perform at her campaign events last year, instead offering their backing in more conventional ways. In May, Trump brought up the allegations again, openly questioning how much the Harris campaign had paid Bruce Springsteen, Bono, Winfrey, and Beyoncé. Harris' campaign had previously responded to questions on the payment to Beyoncé's company, saying that the funds were not in exchange for an endorsement. Beyonce at Kamala Harris' Houston rally X Beyoncé's mother has publicly refuted claims that her daughter received up to $11 million for appearing at a Harris campaign rally. Winfrey has also said that she "was not paid a dime" for her involvement in the Harris event, explaining that the campaign only covered production-related expenses. According to Open Secrets, Harris' campaign raised a hefty amount of political funding, collecting $1.15 billion directly and an additional $843 million from outside groups. In comparison, Trump's campaign brought in $464 million, with an additional $989 million coming from outside sources, according to Open Secrets. Trump shared his Truth Social post while on a four-day trip to the United Kingdom.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store