The election of José Antonio Kast in Chile came as a shock. This is surprising, because he is certainly not the first far-right president in Latin America or in the world. Perhaps the shock stems from the direct link to fascism in the last century. Kast's father was a member of the German NSDAP, the Nazi party, and fled to Chile after the Second World War. His children collaborated with the Pinochet regime and continue to support its ideology wholeheartedly to this day.

Looking at the world map, one sees a strong shift to the right. In Latin America, Argentina's Milei and Chile's Kast are already making waves. There is Noboa in Ecuador, Paz in Bolivia, Jerí in Peru, Bukele in El Salvador, and Asfura in Honduras.

In Europe, the situation is not much better, with Orban in Hungary, Fico in Slovakia, Nawrocki in Poland, Babis in the Czech Republic, Meloni in Italy, and far-right parties peaking in the opinion polls in large countries such as Germany, France, and Spain.

Asia has Narendra Modi with his Hindu nationalism. It is more difficult to label the authoritarian regimes in Russia and China, but it is difficult to call them democratic with respect for human rights.

It is striking that all these far-right governments have been democratically elected. Pinochet came to power through a coup d'état, which no longer seems necessary today.

This means that the strategy to combat the far right must also take this into account. People are not stupid or irrational when they enter the voting booth; they vote for those who promise them what they need: order and stability in some cases, better social protection in others. Whether they actually get what they want is another matter.

A few elements are common to almost all countries.

Why?

An aversion to migrants has developed because people have been led to believe that all those who are 'not like us' are taking their jobs and abusing social protection. These lies can be successful when there is economic uncertainty among the population, due to unemployment or increasing vulnerability.

With the help of right-wing media, the blame for this is then attributed not to a failing economic system, but to all those 'others'. In the United States today, it is already becoming clear that this is not the case. In sectors where migrants are disappearing, their jobs are not being taken by natives, because they do not want to do the dirty and heavy work. Often, it is the companies themselves that disappear along with the migrants.

Aversion to migrants can also be the result of real perceived problems, due to a lack of knowledge and contact in vulnerable neighborhoods.

The fact is that many people are turning to the far right out of anger and despair. Social rights are being eroded, the economy is sluggish, pensions are being reduced or privatized, there is a shortage of childcare, and, worse still, housing. For many people, a roof over their heads is becoming unaffordable. Because, yes, purchasing power is declining.

At the same time, these same people are seeing inequality increase rapidly. Whereas in the past they could dream of improving their lot over time and affording a little more comfort, now they are fighting not to be left behind completely. The traditional parties, center-left or center-right, no longer offer any alternatives. Far-right parties promise non-emancipatory conservative social policies, but for all these people, that is at least something. Above all, they promise order and stability, a dam against real or perceived growing insecurity.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the traditional parties is that they have lost touch with the population. They have gone along with the neoliberal narrative and no longer know what is important to people; they stick to their old slogans, which are no longer credible.

Meanwhile, in almost all societies, the old mechanisms of cohesion and community building have disappeared. Under budgetary pressure, subsidies have been withdrawn and a large part of organised civil society has disappeared. People are left behind, isolated.

A new strategy

This is the context in which a new strategy must be sought. There are currently only two political families that qualify: the left and the green movement. However, both will have to reflect deeply before they have any chance of reducing the influence of the far right.

In the green movement, most of the parties' attention is still focused on 'de-growth' on the one hand and local initiatives on the other. These are insufficient.

De-growth has taken on different meanings over time. The most important thing is that it cannot simply be about growing less or not growing at all, but that growth cannot be the sole objective of the economy. This is still not emphasized enough and makes people afraid that they will have to make do with even less. It is not a slogan that will win you many votes.

For decades, it has been pointed out that the ecological agenda must necessarily go hand in hand with a social agenda, but how this should be done has still not been specified. In my opinion, it cannot be a matter of adding a few mechanisms to ecological measures to bring poor people on board. The order must be reversed: take social measures that also have an ecological impact. Think of housing, transport, education, or childcare.

In addition, however interesting and important a social and solidarity-based economy may be, action is needed against the really big polluters, such as data centers or the chemical industry, which continue to poison people and the soil.

People will never voluntarily give up their small luxuries and comforts as long as the big polluters are left untouched. This cannot be repeated often enough.

For the left, the task is perhaps even more difficult. Many are stuck in their Marxist ideology, which may well provide a correct analysis of capitalism, but no concrete strategy.

'We want capitalism gone', yes, but how and where do you start? And how do you get people behind your banner when the right-wing media has been delegitimizing all concepts of Marxism, socialism or communism for years? Is it enough to argue for 'taking possession of the means of production'? To point to 'alienation', while people often try to find meaning and pride in their often-dangerous work, even in the most thankless circumstances?

It has long been pointed out that abstract slogans are not enough to win people over. We must look not only at the means of production, but also at the goals of production. The economy needs to be changed, and this must be made clear to people in concrete terms.

Above all, people need to understand that the proposed changes will mean concrete improvements for themselves. The language must be clear and correct.

Moreover, the left usually has a well-developed analytical framework with which to denounce the right, but the question is whether that is enough. Isn't it high time to work very concretely on proposals, on a vision for the future that considers the times we live in and the real needs of people?

In short, there is still a lot of work to be done for both the Greens and the left.

Examples

Two politicians can serve as examples of such a useful approach.

President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico won the elections with around 60% of the vote. This was possible thanks to the efforts of her predecessor, Lopez Obrador, and her own attention to what people need. Mexico is a rich country with a poor population.

The two presidents pursued and continue to pursue a policy of proximity, maintaining constant contact with the people, listening to their needs, and implementing social policies that can meet those needs, with benefits, increases in the minimum wage, and social housing. In addition, they are investing in infrastructure, modernizing the economy, and attracting investment. Poverty and inequality have fallen sharply in Mexico, and the President enjoys the support of around 70% of the population.

A second example, in a rich city in a rich country: Zohran Mamdani is now the mayor of New York. He too pursued a policy of proximity, talking to people, listening to what they need, and devising social policies that can improve their lives.

In both cases, there is no question of ideological romanticism, but rather a great deal of realism about what is achievable and possible. Listening to the people and responding to their equally realistic demands, to all those things to which they are entitled.

What needs to be done to achieve this is serious thought about how 'social justice' can be achieved. Looking beyond poverty, because combating poverty alone does not bring about justice, a fight against inequality and therefore a fair tax system, taking climate change into account and therefore environmentally friendly housing and transport, childcare so that women can also go to work, healthcare accessible to all, quality education, labor laws that apply to everyone and an economy that produces what people need.

Now that global attention to social policy has almost completely disappeared, this is the urgent task we face. Commons, social and solidarity economy, food security... these are concepts that can be further developed and that must be adapted to each local situation.

The fight against the far right is therefore about much more than anti-imperialism and more than purely social policy. It is about clearly distancing societies from neoliberalism, about a just world based on the concrete needs of people, the result of a democratic dialogue with the population for whom it is all intended.