Understanding the Radical Right: A Political Science Perspective
The author, Ignacio Imas Arenas, addresses a debate sparked by a column from Carolina Tohá and a response from Hernán Larraín, seeking to clarify the term 'radical right.' He references political scientist Cas Mudde's conceptualization from his book "The Radical Right Today," which uses 'radical right' as an umbrella term. Mudde distinguishes between the extreme right and the radical right, placing President Kast's administration closer to the latter, specifically its populist variant. While radical right actors accept electoral democracy, they are wary of and reject liberal democratic checks and balances. This is exemplified by the Republican Party's and parts of the executive branch's strong criticism of the Comptroller General's office following the case involving former minister Steinert. Mudde's framework also identifies authoritarianism, nativism, and a populism that divides society into a 'pure people' versus a 'corrupt elite' as key pillars of the radical right. Although Kast is not directly comparable to leaders like Bukele or Milei, political phenomena exist on a continuum. With 150 days of the current government completed and over three years remaining, the author understands Tohá's column as a pertinent call to examine the direction these institutional tensions may take.
This analysis dissects the categorization of political movements, particularly the 'radical right,' by referencing scholarly frameworks like Cas Mudde's. It aims to move beyond charged political rhetoric by applying academic definitions to observable actions, such as skepticism towards liberal democratic institutions. The discussion highlights the tension between accepting electoral processes and resisting institutional checks, a dynamic common in populist movements. By framing these issues within a continuum rather than absolute categories, the analysis encourages a nuanced understanding of political evolution. It prompts consideration of how these ideological tendencies might shape governance and institutional relationships over the remaining term, focusing on systemic dynamics rather than individual blame.
AI-generated to prompt reflection — not editorial opinion, not advice, not a statement of fact. How this works.
