As Costa Rica continues to examine voter participation trends, the decline in presidential abstention from 40.04% in 2022 to 30.92% in 2026 has prompted renewed debate about civic engagement, political trust, and the factors that motivate citizens to return to the polls.
Understanding whether this shift signals a structural recovery in democratic participation or merely a temporary fluctuation is critical as the country looks toward the 2030 and 2034 election cycles.
To explore these questions, we spoke with Paz Brizuela, a political analyst with academic training in Political Science and Economics from the University of Costa Rica. Her interdisciplinary background also includes studies in literature and creative writing at the Conservatorio de Castella, as well as cybersecurity training and complementary academic programs from national and international institutions, including Oxford.
Brizuela has built a reputation for approaching political discourse from a multidimensional perspective, combining analytical rigor with a strong focus on communication and public understanding.
In this conversation, Brizuela examines what may have driven the reduction in abstention between the last two presidential elections, whether the improvement was shaped more by political actors or by shifting voter sentiment, and what emotional and institutional dynamics continue to influence participation.
She also discusses the profiles of modern abstentionists, the role media coverage plays in either mobilizing or discouraging voters, and the recurring disconnect between campaign strategies and the realities of disengaged citizens.
Looking ahead, Brizuela outlines what a serious national effort to reduce abstention should involve, identifies the risks that could push participation levels backward, and offers insight into whether Costa Rica is witnessing a genuine democratic re-engagement or simply a cyclical response to political context.
The following interview addresses the structural, psychological, and strategic dimensions of abstention, providing a forward-looking perspective on one of the most consequential challenges facing the country’s electoral landscape.
Costa Rica went from 40.04% presidential abstention in 2022 to roughly 30.92% in 2026. What do you think most explains that drop?
The main difference was that in 2026 people found clear reasons to turn out. The election became more understandable: it was framed around continuity versus opposition. When voters feel there is a clear choice to be made, abstention tends to decrease. It was a more reactive vote than a purely programmatic one, but politics is always emotional, and certain narratives managed to generate identification in a way that was largely absent in the first round of 2022.
Was the 2026 improvement driven more by who was on the ballot, or by what voters were feeling about the country’s direction?
It was driven more by what voters were feeling about the country’s direction. Although there were many candidates on the ballot, votes ultimately concentrated around a few parties. That suggests voters were not carefully weighing every option, but rather positioning themselves emotionally and politically within a broader national scenario. At the end of the day, it’s about how people feel about their future and whether they see themselves reflected in the bigger picture.
If you had to name the one factor that moved occasional non-voters back to the polls in 2026, what would it be?
The narrative. The communication from parties managed to build clear and emotionally resonant stories that reached people who had never voted before or who had stayed home in previous elections. It was less about individual proposals and more about offering a political narrative people could understand and feel part of. This motivated abstentionists in both directions: some returned to support the continuity path, while others were drawn to the opposition, showing that it wasn’t about the party itself but about feeling their choice mattered. When people feel they are part of a story, voting stops being abstract and becomes personal.
Do you view 2026 as a real reversal of a trend, or as a one-cycle exception that could fade by 2030?
It depends largely on how the political dynamics of the 2026-2030 government unfold. There are at least two possible scenarios. If political polarization remains high, abstention could stay relatively low, because polarization tends to mobilize voters. However, if polarization turns quickly into frustration or disillusionment, participation could decline again. So rather than a definitive reversal, 2026 opens a window that is not yet consolidated. It’s a moment of opportunity but one that needs to be nurtured, otherwise it could slip away.
In your view, is abstention mainly about distrust in institutions, or about politics feeling irrelevant to daily life?
I would start from the premise that everything is political and that public decisions inevitably affect everyday life. What we are seeing is less a rejection of institutions and more dissatisfaction with political actors and practices. Costa Rica’s institutions have historically been strong; that is different from debates about bureaucracy or efficiency. Framing abstention as institutional distrust often reflects a narrative that pits citizens against the state, rather than people’s lived experience. For many, abstention is not rebellion; it’s a way of saying, “I don’t feel represented, I don’t see myself in what politics offers me.”
What emotions show up most in abstentionist explanations: disappointment, anger, fatigue, cynicism, fear, or indifference?
Apathy is the most common, often expressed through phrases like “this doesn’t affect me,” “they’re all the same,” “they’re all corrupt,” or “nothing will change.” It is less about anger and more about resignation and gradual disconnection from politics. It’s a quiet kind of disconnection, not loud protest people stop believing their voice matters, and that silence speaks volumes.
What do campaigns consistently misunderstand about abstentionists when they try to mobilize turnout?
Campaigns often speak to an abstract idea of “the people” as if it were homogeneous. In reality, society is deeply diverse, and many individuals do not feel genuinely addressed or listened to. That reinforces the perception that politics speaks about people rather than with them. The key is to listen first, because people know when they’re being spoken to versus truly heard.
Do you think political coverage tends to re-engage non-voters or push them away? Why?
It depends on the approach. Political journalism has strong potential to re-engage non-voters when it explains processes, provides context, and connects politics to everyday concerns. However, when coverage focuses primarily on conflict, scandal, or constant confrontation, it can generate fatigue and reinforce disengagement. The issue is not journalism itself, but the priorities within coverage. Coverage can inspire action when it makes politics feel real, not just a series of headlines.
What interview formats actually help people re-enter the conversation: long-form interviews, short clips, debates, community forums?
Face-to-face formats remain the most effective. Direct interaction allows people to feel heard and recognized. When there is real dialogue and listening, politics becomes less distant and more relatable. Even a short, genuine conversation can make someone think, “I do matter, my opinion counts.”
If you were designing a national plan to reduce abstention again by 2030, what are the first three actions you would implement?
First, reframe political communication to clearly link voting with concrete outcomes in everyday life.
Second, strengthen local and community-level political spaces where people can engage directly.
Third, promote more direct, in-person contact between political actors and citizens, rather than relying almost exclusively on digital campaigning.
It’s about turning politics from something abstract into something people can touch, see, and feel connected to.
If turnout improved in 2026, what would have to happen for Costa Rica to backslide toward 2022 levels again?
A rapid cycle of disappointment: unmet expectations, poorly managed economic or security challenges, and a return to a political discourse perceived as distant or disconnected. When citizens feel that participation does not lead to meaningful change, abstention tends to rise again. Participation rises when people feel their vote matters; when it doesn’t, silence is the loudest response.
What Comes Next for Voter Participation in Costa Rica
The reduction in abstention seen in 2026 may reflect more than a favorable electoral moment. As Brizuela explains, participation tends to increase when voters feel part of a narrative and believe their decision carries real weight.
Yet that sense of connection is inherently fragile. If the clarity that defined the election cycle gives way to frustration, unmet expectations, or a perception that political actors remain distant from everyday concerns, the conditions that once drove disengagement could quickly resurface.
Her analysis suggests that the challenge ahead is not simply mobilizing voters during campaign season, but sustaining their belief that democratic participation leads to tangible outcomes.
Communication that links public decisions to daily life, stronger community-level engagement, and genuine dialogue between citizens and political leaders may determine whether the momentum holds. Without those elements, abstention risks returning not as protest, but as the quiet resignation of voters who no longer see themselves reflected in the political landscape.
Costa Rica now stands at a pivotal juncture. The decline from 2022 signals possibility, but not permanence. Whether the country consolidates this progress or slips back into higher disengagement will depend largely on the credibility of its leadership and the responsiveness of its political system.
As the path toward 2030 begins to take shape, the durability of voter participation may ultimately serve as one of the clearest measures of the nation’s democratic health.
