COVID-19 in Chile: Reflections on governance and community in Santiago

Over the course of the next few months, Oxford Urbanists will be publishing dispatches from around the world on what feels like an unprecedented era in modern history, both for cities and the world, during — and perhaps after — the COVID-19 pandemic. We want to know how cities are responding; what lessons we can learn for the future; and how we think cities might change indefinitely.

Case Study: Santiago, Chile

The COVID-19 pandemic has shaken society, overwhelming our ability to deal with more or less controlled levels of risk by unfolding radical uncertainty at all levels. In the case of Chile, this situation came at a particularly pivotal moment for us, as we had found ourselves immersed in a quasi-refoundational process initiated after the social outbreak of the 18th of October (18-O) protests.

 
Despite being in an incipient stage of the outbreak, compared to other countries in Asia and Europe, the coronavirus is exposing previous inequalities within and between Chilean cities. Although my knowledge in epidemiological matters is nil, I am interested in using this space to draw attention to the urban context in which the epidemic has begun to unfold, and to elaborate on enhancing social cohesion as a way to combat this pandemic.

1. COVID-19 reached an unequal Chile during a process of institutional redefinition, and at a time when levels of social cohesion are low.

Chile’s development after the military dictatorship (1973-1990) has been characterized by a rapid and sustained growth, a consequence of the process of neoliberalisation. Despite expanding levels of aggregate welfare for the population, this process has generated and solidified a deep structural social inequality. Moreover, this divide is now in the zeitgeist, if we consider that the public perception of inequality has increased a lot more than the actual inequality (UNDP, 2017).

Although we are still in the process of understanding what really broke out on 18-O, something that was undoubtedly made clear is that inequality had exceeded the limits of our social arrangement and, therefore, we must redefine it in the years ahead. This, of course, occurred at a great cost, given the violence, state repression and human rights violations that occurred during this period. And it also eroded not only social trust in key institutions, such as the government and police, but, also, deepened distances in a society that already felt apart.

 
2. COVID-19 is deployed in a context of high urban segregation. That is a problem.

At the urban level, inequality in Chile is expressed by spatial segregation marked by issues of access to quality public services. Although the coronavirus does not discriminate by class, gender or race in contagion, it does if we consider how different groups are exposed to the virus. In a study carried out by the Centro de Producción del Espacio (2020), it is possible to observe that a higher risk of exposition to the virus is concentrated in the most socially vulnerable sectors, where precarious housing and overcrowding are present. The latter is a critical yet complicating risk factor, since these overcrowding conditions normally include the cohabitation of older adults and people who must go out to work daily, unable to afford to stay inside during quarantine (Araos, 2008).

3. The institutional response to the pandemic, and tension between the central government and the municipalities.

 The central government has had a gradual response to the expansion of the pandemic. First, President Sebastián Piñera declared a state of catastrophe, which granted him special powers at an early stage of the outbreak, like establishing a night curfew, amongst other measures.

Since then, the measures from the central government have been focused on generating sector-based quarantines, accompanied by sanitary cords in some municipalities and cities. Santiago is an emblematic case: at first, the seven high-income municipalities in the city, where most of the infected are, had extended a general quarantine, keeping the rest of the 29 municipalities out, despite pressure from different civil society groups — and particularly from the municipal authorities — to extend quarantine to the entire city. This has generated a series of public disputes between the central government, health authorities, and municipal representatives, even through social media — which, of course, does not help to improve the already-eroded public perception of our authorities. 

Before the outbreak, Chile was preparing to have the first election of regional governors. Sadly, this situation has postponed the election at least until next year. This is connected to the institutional response to the pandemic, since it further reinforces the need to reform our cities by generating metropolitan governments that can act as an intermediate governance body between the central and municipal levels. The current false dichotomy between a central government, oblivious to the problems of the territory, as opposed to municipal authorities with their feet “in the mud,” amidst people’s fears and needs, has been a serious problem for a coordinated and efficient management of this crisis.

Although it is not viable for the current situation, this is an additional incentive to prioritize the creation of a metropolitan authority that is close enough to the territory, and with enough authority to take actions at a less-atomized level than the municipality. And, at the same time, it must have the institutional legitimacy to have an ongoing dialogue with the central government.

4. Towards a community response to the pandemic.

 As I mentioned, we are in a fragile and uncertain period at an institutional level, and this has effects on possible responses to the pandemic at the community level. However, these effects are uncertain, as they can either activate communities as co-responsible agents from a logic of care, or from social control. It is not the same to seek coordination mechanisms through social media, or other ways to supply food or basic supplies to the elderly or other vulnerable populations, and then use these same means to denounce neighbours of supposedly risky behaviors, or to persecute specific groups, such as health workers who are fighting the virus every day on the “front line,” generating draconian confinement rules justified in the alleged “care” of rest of the community.

This pandemic will pass sooner or later, and the communities will remain — we will continue visiting the community shops; living with our neighborhoods; or playing with our children in the squares and parks. Therefore, we must pay attention to the ways that we are caring for each other, and treating ourselves and our neighbours, in order to give an adequate response. We must not fall into delusions of tyranny, which will only help to break down a social fabric that has proven to be so fragile.

 ***

Ignacio Pérez is a DPhil (PhD) candidate at the School of Geography and the Environment at the University of Oxford. ignacio.perez@ouce.ox.ac.uk / @JIPerezK 

Cited works

Araos, C. (2008). La tensión entre filiación y conyugalidad en la génesis empírica del allegamiento: estudio cualitativo comparado entre familias pobres de Santiago de Chile.

Centro de Producción del Espacio (2020). Vulnerabilidad de los hogares chilenos de cara a la expansión del #COVID-19. Accesed at : https://producciondelespacio.org/2020/03/31/vulnerabilidad-de-los-hogares-chilenos-de-cara-a-la-expansion-del-covid-19/

PNUD (2017). Desiguales: Orígenes, cambios y desafíos de la brecha social en Chile. Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD).