A complete retrospect analysis is needed to understand what went wrong for Chile to experience the 2019 social unrest—examining how the electoral cycle of 2019 brought Piñera back to the Presidential seat and the opportunities missed to move #Chile away from a populist surge is critical to understand the underlying forces propelling the anger explosion in October 2019.  Why is looking back to Bachelet’s term a necessary exercise? Bachelet’s 2nd generation reforms averted the rage from citizens demanding to narrow the gaps (Students’ Protests 2006, 2011). However, the rage contained during Bachelet’s reform negotiations could no longer be averted when the Agenda of Transformation stalled during Piñera’s 2nd term. Rage made its comeback by failing to embrace a safety net to bridge #inequality during Piñera’s comeback in 2020. Given the urgent pleas from citizens claiming better living conditions, these should have entered Piñera’s Coalition’s Agenda in 2020. However, disparities have not been one of the banners in conservative parties, just as security and crime had not been President Boric’s coalition’s top priorities. Still, both Piñera and Boric had to deal with these non-priorities during their presidencies when these became urgent needs to secure governance. On what went wrong and whether they could have done more to avoid the social upheaval in 2019 or diminish the crime rate among the poorest, Country Risk Chile’s take has led us to the times before the social unrest in 2019 to observe the elite’s apparent disconnection to citizens’ pressing needs. Micro pressures were present before the social upheaval in 2019, but elites’ cognitive dissonance caused by ideological postures and complacency explains the status-quo inertia.

From utopian views to pragmatism. Gabriel Boric took the presidential seat in 2022 after two systemic shocks: the social unrest in 2019 and the COVID-19 pandemic. Having attained victory on foundational pleas to tackle disparities, Boric has transited from radical postures to refund the nation to more pragmatic principles in governing the country. In Boric’s own words: “One thing is to be an activist, quite another, to be the nation’s president.” in reply to critical voices on his political ability to adapt “course” to events and evolve from post-social upheaval utopia to pragmatism in political goals. Indeed, President Boric has been skillful in changing and adapting to more pressing needs for governance, and he has also defended his right to change course.