Chilean President José Antonio Kast on Aug. 5 announced an agenda of roughly 30 bills targeting organized crime and terrorism. The proposals would expand police powers, toughen penalties for criminal organizations, strengthen border controls and create new constitutional provisions on public security. How much of a departure is Kast’s security agenda from the policies pursued by previous Chilean governments, including those of Gabriel Boric, and how significant would the proposed changes be in practice? How likely is the government to get its security package through Congress? How effective would the measures be, and how is the public responding to the proposals?
Catalina Droppelmann, professor at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile and director of the university’s Center for Justice and Society Studies: “President Kast’s security agenda, known as ACOT (Agenda Against Organized Crime and Terrorism), is not, in technical terms, an advance in public security policy but rather an agenda of militarization of public security. The previous government under Gabriel Boric made substantive institutional changes, including the creation of a new Ministry of Public Security in 2025, oriented toward strengthening civilian institutional capacity. ACOT instead pursues a different logic: a set of constitutional amendments that would incorporate the armed forces into functions¡ traditionally reserved for civilian police, while placing core security provisions beyond the ordinary reach of the Constitutional Court. Among its provisions are a new state of exception triggered by organized crime and expanded powers allowing the military to support police in surveillance, perimeter control and logistics. Legislative approval remains uncertain. The constitutional reform requires a reinforced majority that the governing coalition does not hold on its own. Resistance is not coming solely from the opposition, as lawmakers aligned with the government have requested modifications, without ruling out their support. The ordinary-law initiatives face lower thresholds and have a greater likelihood of passing before the end of the year. Popular support notwithstanding, the package’s real effectiveness is doubtful. Prioritizing police and military control without a parallel prevention strategy tends to produce limited results.
There is also a risk that territorial interventions will stigmatize specific communities and neighborhoods, eroding the social fabric rather than strengthening it. Expanding the powers of security forces that lack the training or protocols needed to operate under a prolonged state of exception increases the likelihood of abuses. Finally, ACOT prioritizes tougher criminal penalties over the structural causes of the phenomenon (such as inequality, institutional fragmentation and illegal markets) and early prevention, which undermines its long-term sustainability and effectiveness.
Accede al artículo completo en este enlace
Accede al post de Instagram