AA
Share
In times when politics raises more doubts than certainties, parties not only need good ideas—they must also deal with what they represent as a brand. Can they do so in a way that plays to their advantage? According to the Citizen GPS report by the Chilean consulting firm DATAVOZ, a significant portion of the Chilean electorate shares some of the statist ideas associated with the Communist Party—but rejects the party on an emotional and identity level. Even when voters agree with its proposals, the party’s name itself remains an obstacle.
This became clear after the victory of Communist leader Jeannette Jara in the ruling coalition’s primaries. Her platform, which calls for a more active state role in the economy, reignited debate about the Communist Party’s place within the governing bloc—and how it is perceived beyond it.
To understand this contrast, the report developed two indicators: one measuring programmatic predisposition toward statism (that is, how much people agree with a stronger state role), and another measuring affective predisposition toward the Communist Party. Both use a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means strong support and 5 means strong rejection.
The gap between these two indicators is the heart of the analysis. While emotional rejection of the Communist Party is high and concentrated (with many rating it a 5, the maximum level of rejection), opinions about statism are more evenly distributed, with most people taking intermediate positions (scores between 2 and 4). In other words: many do not like the party—but they do not necessarily reject its economic ideas.
A key finding: 36.1% of respondents fall into this category—emotionally distant from the Communist Party, yet open to its ideas. Who are they? Primarily young women from lower socioeconomic sectors, with basic or secondary education. And that makes them electorally decisive.
This gap between program and brand is not unique to Chile. Across Latin America, the same pattern emerges: citizens want a more active state, but don’t trust the parties that advocate for it. The problem is not just programmatic—it is symbolic.
Parties—especially those on the left or with statist traditions—often carry historical baggage that works against them. Not because of their current proposals, but because of what they evoke: outdated rhetoric, rigid aesthetics, past alliances, or ideologies that people perceive as distant or obsolete. This can block even those ideas that much of the public actually agree with.
Across the region, party disaffection is growing. Voting is no longer driven solely by programs—it is driven by trust, emotion, and what people believe a party or leader represents. That emotional component has become as important, if not more, than ideology itself. As recent studies show, the figure of the “rootless voter” is on the rise: someone who commits to no party, may agree with certain ideas, but distances themselves if they do not trust who is proposing them.
This forces parties to ask themselves uncomfortable questions: How much can they change the way they present themselves without losing their identity? What are they willing to adjust to connect with sectors that are close programmatically, but far away symbolically? How do you build trust when the brand drags rejection?
The case of the Communist Party in Chile puts on the table a major challenge for many political forces in Latin America: it is not enough to have proposals that respond to social demands. It is also necessary to build a narrative that generates belonging, that connects from the everyday, that does not frighten, that does not sound alien.
And that is not easy. Because it is not just a matter of “communicating better”, but of understanding that, in contexts of disaffection, emotion precedes reason. The program may be good, but if the brand is not convincing, the vote goes elsewhere. It is in this tension between program and brand, ideas and affections, where a good part of the political future is at stake. And this is perhaps the greatest challenge for those who seek to represent the majorities from a transforming vision: to make people not only listen to their proposals, but also want to believe in those who carry them.
*This article was originally published in Latinoamérica21.
