It's just been the first round of the Chilean Presidential elections.
I wouldn't find a very good article in English for you, but the Granuad one at least gives you the basics;
www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/far-right-populist-looks-set-to-win-first-round-of-chiles-presidential-election
We're down to two;
Kast: who amongst other things believes that same sex weddings, abortion and political correctness should all be illegal, thinks that Trump and Bolsonaro were on the right track, supports Pinochet's military approach to Government and intends to stamp out crime and civil unrest. On the plus side he intends to open up the copper and lithium markets which desperately needs doing. Though personally I'd be heavily taxing investors at the same time and Kast intends to reduce corporate taxation. Good for the economy, but crap for the people. This guy is seriously right wing.
Boric: who has been working with The Communist Party to draw up his manifesto, though he does seem not to be trying to create a little distance, believes in heavy corporate taxation, [too heavy, he'll screw up their growth) state ownership, revamped pension plan and increased social benefits.
.*********
Kast got 28%, Boric 26% and the more middle of the road candidate got 13%.
Comes to it I guess I'd rather see Boric for the much needed social and welfare aspects and for fear of the social destruction which Kast might begin. At least with Boric there's not much likelihood of short term riots. I fear though, that Kast will win and the riots will begin immediately. But they're both b***** awful as potential presidents.
It's going to be a rough year for Chile.
|
Boric may mean longer term riots and social problems due to a failing economy, high interest rates, inability to borrow money to fund promises etc etc.
Whoever wins the poor and downtrodden suffer most - middle classes are sufficiently well educated to mostly manage the systems imposed, the rich and/or corrupt can afford to adapt behaviours to suit.
Perhaps the main take home lesson is that democracy doesn't work. When voters are so polarised (economically and socially) they vote in their rational (to them) self interest, not in their capacity as a member of a larger society.
Like the UK faced with the dominant choice of Boris or Jeremy the answer was clearly given. The balanced vote may have been Libdems (very decent people) but they seriously lost ground. SNP north of the border are simply the dominant emotional choice - rationality is a matter of opinion
|
And you thought UK politics was bad.... - No FM2R
