The results of the general elections in Chile left no one indifferent. Of course, the headlines were dominated by the presidential elections, which saw José Antonio Kast win with 27.9% of the vote, followed by Gabriel Boric with 25.8%, both of whom went on to the second round. However, regardless of the above, I believe that the result of the parliamentary election takes on an even greater significance for the governability of the next four years (if the Constitutional Convention and the exit plebiscite so desire, it goes without saying).

As of next March, the Chamber of Deputies will be made up of a majority of the current opposition, with 80 deputies belonging to Apruebo Dignidad, Nuevo Pacto Social, and other similar parties, which will account for 52% of the votes. For their part, Chile Podemos Más, Frente Social Cristiano, and other similar parties will hold 68 seats, equivalent to 44% of the votes. The Partido de la Gente, which does not belong to any of the above coalitions, elected six deputies, in addition to one from Centro Unido. Although most of the bills presented by the center-left and the left could pass this legislative process, those initiatives that require special quorums (under the current Constitution) would necessarily need an agreement with parliamentarians "from the front." In fact, neither of the two sectors, even with the addition of 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 are, it would be after a more cross-party agreement.

For its part, the Senate was "tied," with 25 senators belonging to Chile Podemos Más, 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 about a more cross-party understanding of the initiatives that are to be carried out, again, regardless of who occupies the highest office next March. 

Of course, this is not without risks. One possibility is that the executive branch's political and economic leadership will require significant consensus, but another is that the composition of Congress will cause legislative gridlock, with blockages from one side or the other, which would hardly bring stability. Moreover, as analyst Patricio Navia mentioned at our last event, this could lead to significant changes being incorporated into the new Constitution regarding the powers of the State, requiring early elections to be called. In the current turbulent financial climate, this would not be the best news, given the fragility that it would reveal in our democracy. Call me naive, but I hope that agreements prevail and there are no more fractures.

Nathan Pincheira

Chief Economist at FYNSA