The results of the general elections in Chile left no one indifferent. Of course, the headlines were taken by those of the presidential election, which gave as winner José Antonio Kast, with 27.9% of the preferences, followed by Gabriel Boric, with 25.8%, both of whom went to the second round. However, regardless of the above, it seems to me that the result of the parliamentary election takes on a relevance that could be even more important for the governability of the next four years (if the Constitutional Convention and the exit plebiscite so wish, it goes without saying).

The Chamber of Deputies would be formed, as of next March, by a majority of the current opposition, with 80 deputies belonging to Apruebo Dignidad, Nuevo Pacto Social and other related parties, which would represent 52% of the votes. On the other hand, Chile Podemos Más, Frente Social Cristiano and other similar parties would reach 68 positions, equivalent to 44% of the votes. The Partido de la Gente, not belonging, on paper, to any of the above coalitions, elected 6 deputies, plus 1 from Centro Unido. Although most of the projects presented by the Center Left and the Left could pass this legislative procedure, those initiatives that require special quorums (with the current Constitution) would necessarily need an agreement with parliamentarians of the "front". In fact, neither of the two sectors, adding to their ranks congressmen elected by the People's Party, would reach 3/5 (93 votes), let alone 2/3 (103 votes). This leads us to believe that the most controversial proposals of any of the candidates elected president would have less chance of being approved or, if they do, it would be after a more transversal agreement.

On the other hand, the Senate was "tied", with 25 senators belonging to Chile Podemos plus, Frente Social Cristiano and related independents (50%), while Apruebo Dignidad chose 5, Nuevo Pacto Social 17 and other related independents added 2. This composition would mean that even ordinary laws would require some kind of agreement with a congressman from the other side, or, in the case of those that need high quorums, at least 5. This would also bring some more transversal understanding in the initiatives to be carried out, again, independent of who occupies the first magistracy next March. 

Of course, this is not without risks. One possibility is that the political-economic management of the executive may require important consensus, but another is that the composition of the Congress may cause legislative stagnation, with blockages on one side or the other, which would hardly bring stability. Moreover, as analyst Patricio Navia mentioned in our last event, this could lead to the incorporation of significant changes to the powers of the State in the new Constitution, which would require calling for early elections. Within the convulsed financial environment, this would not be the best of news, given the fragility of our democracy. Call me naïve, but I hope that agreements will prevail and not more fractures.

Nathan Pincheira

Chief Economist, FYNSA