September 5, 2003
DON'T SQUANDER WHAT THE GENERAL GAVE YOU:
That other September 11th (The Economist, Sep 4th 2003)
THE date that now haunts the world has long had a different meaning in Chile. September 11th 1973 was the day on which President Salvador Allende (centre, with glasses, above) was violently removed from power. The presidential palace was bombed by the Chilean air force, and he killed himself in the ruins.Allende had been Chile's first socialist president. When elected, in 1970, he had preached a glowing vision of economic and social equality; but nationalisation and collectivisation brought economic disaster, while the draining of Chile's reserves led to roaring inflation. The cold-war climate, too, was against him. Although he had seemed a saviour to many at home, the United States could not stomach a Marxist in power in their hemisphere. American officials encouraged the coup, and rejoiced when it succeeded.
Allende's fall brought General Augusto Pinochet to power for 17 years. His dictatorship ushered in free-market reforms that led to Chile's rapid growth in the 1990s, but it also unleashed appalling violence. Around 3,000 died, and many more—possibly hundreds of thousands, according to Alfredo Jocelyn-Holt, an historian—were tortured, in order to install and keep General Pinochet in power.
Chile has now enjoyed 13 years of elected government, the last three of them under a socialist president, and half of all Chileans living now were not yet born in the year the coup occurred. But the divisions it caused have yet to heal. This became clear as the anniversary neared. Tentative plans for a cathartic national commemoration, bringing together the armed forces and human-rights groups, came to nothing. Even the centre-left coalition could not agree: leaders of the centrist Christian Democrats wanted no part, they said, of any homage to Allende. [...]
Chile's transition to democracy will not be complete until it reforms its constitution. Mr Lagos admits that this document “doesn't pass the test of democracy”. Among other things, it allows four of the nine non-elected senators who sit alongside the 38 elected members to be retired military commanders. It has also entrenched a binominal electoral system, under which each constituency elects two representatives to each house. This virtually ensures that one candidate from each of the two main coalitions is returned, and critics maintain that, by making results predictable, it fuels abstentions and undermines the legitimacy of democracy.
Which raises the obvious question: other than liberal fetishism, why complete the "transition to democracy"? If you've got thirteen years of elected governments, rapid growth, and a host of liberties, why risk it all for the sake of the imagined purity of your democracy? If the end of democracy is to secure liberty, then you don't stand to gain much. If that's not its end, then who needs it? Posted by orrinj at September 5, 2003 10:14 AM
I don't know if it is the racial disparities
but it may be safe to say that Latin American
democracy will and should have a slightly
different flavor than our system.
I think until Latin American can cleanse itself
of third-worldism, semi-authoritarian republics
that respect private property are the way to go.
I tell you though, it would be nice to have a few
more sane and prosperous countries in the hemisphere. Chile and Argentina have also been
the "great white hope" in that regard, but the
results aren't in yet.
Allende was a wolf in sheep's clothing (a
more urbane Castro).
Those who would use democracy to destroy liberty
should not be honored. And therefore maintaining
a few Pinochet-era generals around in the Senate
is just prudent.
What little I know of Chile's constitutional arrangement is that while it's worked in the recent past, there are readily apparent dysfunctionalities in it that cannot survive the present generation. Politicians who negotiated the transition to civilian government and their immediate successors are likely to understand and honor their agreements, but future leaders will question it.
This isn't some sort of fetishism; only prudence to move towards a constitution able to serve future generations absent the unique circumstances of the post-Pinochet era. What would have happened had the 13 original states put in a provision in the Constiution giving them extra privileges future stats would not have?
Posted by: Chris Durnell at September 5, 2003 12:34 PMChris:
Hard as it is to imagine, NH would be an even better place to live?
Posted by: oj at September 5, 2003 12:45 PMIf General Shelton had staged a coup against President Gore, then the September 11, (Chile)
would begin to make sense. If a rogue Chilean
paramilitary group; upset at the harassment
of Gen. Pinochet, and the breaking of the transition rules, had taken such an action;
maybe there would a parallel. The present analogies by fatuous commentators like Isabel Allende, Noam Chomsky, Pilger et al; is an obscenity
Well, let's cut Isabel some slack--even the Ceascescus' nephews and nieces must have regretted his overthrow.
Posted by: oj at September 5, 2003 2:10 PMWhen the word 'appalling' is used in this context, one weeps when it is not used of Zimbawe, Iraq, Iran, Cuba, NK, and a host of others (even ostensible friends like Belarus). Blinders are everywhere, even in The Economist.
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 5, 2003 8:51 PM