Pinochet: Hero or Villain?

Originally posted by what_is_history I heard many people make the claim that without Pinochet, Chile would have become a haven�for�Socialist/Communist governments.

Aww, that's too bad, isn't it?

Thread opened again,after controversial discussions among the mods.

Originally posted by what_is_history Having lived in Chile for 2 years, I quickly learned that General Agusto Pinochet is a very polarizing figure.  Many Chilean people hail him as a brave savior for the Chilean nation when he overthrew President Salvador Allende in the Chilean Golpe of 1973.  I heard many people make the claim that without Pinochet, Chile would have become a haven for Socialist/Communist governments.  Other people, however, see Pinochet as an evil man who murdered his own people and overthrew a democratically elected government.    What do you think?

he was an evil face of totalitarian capitalism. Overthrowing a democratic elected and socialist government with the backing of the US.

One of the clear examples of where capitalism is more important than democracy in the foreign policy of Washington. shameful.




Edited by Leonidas - 25-Aug-2007 at 08:38

^

That's easy to explain. Allende got the support of only 33% of the people when he was chosen president. Most people didn't like him while he was in power. However, the same people that wanted Allende out didn't wanted a gorilla in, like Pinochet was.

Edited by pinguin - 25-Aug-2007 at 11:06

haivng read this thread I feel the best figure to liken pinochet to is napoleon, they obth dictators which in itself is wrong but that said did some great things for thier country i.e. expanding france and pinochet (see thread) however there surch for power and thier actions against the poeple cannot make them a hero, as they must be blamless. so dispite all the good points when discussing the meirts of a dictator it must be renmbered absolute power curropts absolutly and any dictator is therefore disqualified from extreme praisworthy tags such as hero n.b Hitler could also be used as a comparision, sorted out the country re unemployment and hyper inflation but took his power too far i.e. WW2 Holocaust

Originally posted by pinguin The son of a former diplomat of Allende, who was killed in Washington by a bomb put in a car by Pinochet's agents in there, went to the funeral of Pinochet and spit his coffin.

It should be noted that he was working for the Cuban DGI and was about to flee to Cuba. While it is sad that his girlfriend was killed as well, it should be noted that the assassination was not random but part of an intelligence war.

That said, Allende's actions do not seem that of a democrat. I believe it is Jean Francois Revel who said that "When Pinochet killed Chilean democracy, it was already dead.". Allende's efforts to centralize economic power was an important building block of Socialism, his proclaimed goal. His government also chose not to act against mobs "re-organizing" ownership of farms in the countryside.

More notable from an external security aspect, he allowed in numerous foreign Communists with ties to Cuba and some were involved in terrorist activity. They were given asylum in Chile and were tolerated due to their being part of the common Socialist fight. After the Golpe, they were allowed to leave peacefully by the Pinochet dictatorship who considered domestic enemies to be more pressing concerns.

Notable is that the Chilean Socialist Party retained close ties to Moscow despite the break with Trotsky. The general democratic society of Chile made internal party discipline a bit looser hence there were plenty of members who were more ambivalent about replacing democracy with a dictatorship. Nonetheless, the Socialist Party had a strong leadership which was willing to use dictatorship to accomplish it's goals.

The vast urbanization strategy of Allende also had a practical bent to it. By surrounding the cities with poor quality housing blocks, he brought in poorer immigrants to the city who would offset the opposition felt by most urbanites. The rationing process was also used in order to set groups off against each other and to win over the poor to support the increasingly dictatorial government.

Factory workers were assumed to be loyal to the Socialist Party and were armed in the monthes leading up to the coup. The workers, howevery much they proclaimed their support for the Socialist government, were unwilling to fight for it.

The primary concern for the stability of the Socialist government was containing the military. The military had occasionally applied pressure to the Chilean government in the past (usually just administrative squabbles but worrying nonetheless) and might follow the example of the nearby countries in conducting a coup. Officers were also becoming more vocal about the situation in Chile and some had been found supplying Right-Wing paramilitaries. To contain the threat, the government reorganized the higher ranking officers in an effort to place loyal officers in charge.

The effort saw the removal of several senior officers every few months based on their outspokeness about the regime. One of the last survivors was Pinochet who was actually promoted under what are now murky conditions. One view is that he was promoted due to being the last middle-ranking officer who did not explicitly condemn the government, another is that there was a name mix-up with another officer who actually was loyal to the government. Whatevery the cause, the leading officers believed that their careers and possibly the survival of freedom in Chile needed strong action.

Growing anti-government sentiment engouraged them. It is possible to take that too seriously due to the chronic instability of Chilean politics since WWII. The military had for a long time been a Right-Wing institution and once formative experience was crushing worker revolts. One may also look at the Army helmets used from the time and note their similarity to German helmets from WWI to WWII. That is because the Chilean Army imitated the Prussian Military after the Prussian Victory over France in 1870. Ideas also saw some Fascist sympathies in the Army during WWII.

More Centrist experience was crushing a Communist revolt in the 40's and the revealing of the crimes and abuses of the rebels. Pinochet cited that as his transformative experience but it is likely his views had only been confirmed by that. The military by 1973 had become weary of constant government interference and support for action was common among the rank and file.

The coup took place almost quietly with few civilians getting involved. There were occasional firefights by foreigners (but most of them left) and a few Socialist Party activists. The vast bulk of the activity was the seige of the Presidential Palace and the bombing of it. The military seized important civilian locations and isolateed the palace off from the outside. People passing around and to the Palace were searched for weapons and minor efforts were made to penetrate the Building. Eventually Allende decided that bloodshed should be minimized but decided to kill himself instead of surrendering.

There was still some opposition and a few firefights occured three months after the coup. Over 3,000 of the deaths attributed to his regime for political reasons were during the coup and the three months afterwards.

The civilian politicians hostile to the government were also urging action and even a coup in order to restore order along the lines of past Chilean politics. When the Military launced the coup, they were applauded by the Senate and urged to restore power to civilian authroity soon. The coup plotters did not.

Pinochet and his other plotters were divided on the issue of bringing back the old politics but eventually Pinochet's view prevailed. He argued that the root causes of the catastrophe of Allende's rule had to be corrected before Chile could return to democracy. The idea he had was to allow some "representation" by introducing a constitution with elections paced very far appart giving the government considerable room to maneuver.

He alienated many members of the parties opposed to Allende by not giving power back to the people and embarked on a plan to radically transform Chile's economy using top American economists and Chilean students of them. He transformed the society economically and linked Chile to the international market. He reduced Chile's dependancy on Copper mining by his free-trade policies while ensuring the military and himself go a substantial cut.

Continued opposition made the military government jumpy about dissent and deaths and torture of oppontents continued even after the the trickle of fighting after the coup had dieed out. Self-censorship permeated the major communication outlets such as television and radio. Most newspapers folowed suit but some very small papers were not harassed.

Most people after the coup were disappointed by the failure to restore democracy but were generally releived that the military had taken power. A few years later saw the people disillusioned about the honesty of Pinochet's government and dissatisfied with the economy during the turbulent adjustment to his economic reforms.

His legacy is a chile that neither decended into Communism nor a more traditional Dictatorship. His effort at a "guided Democracy" was weak enough in enforcement that a civil society could flourish so long as it stayed apolitical. That refusal to stay in power at any cost was what made the transition back to Democracy possible. His legacy is a troubled one but relative to the alternative, a good one.

His legacy is a chile that neither decended into Communism nor a more traditional Dictatorship. His effort at a "guided Democracy" was weak enough in enforcement that a civil society could flourish so long as it stayed apolitical. That refusal to stay in power at any cost was what made the transition back to Democracy possible. His legacy is a troubled one but relative to the alternative, a good one.

Originally posted by Blueglasnost That is pretty difficult to say. I would tend to be more nuanced than many to tackle the topic. Actually, Allende was not such a democrat either; he gained power after having elected by only 36 % or so of Chileans, this is not what we are accustomed to calling "democratic", it seems.

That's how the Chilean electoral system worked. If you don't consider that democratic then before 1990 Chile has never been a democracy except for the 1964-1970 period. Frei was the only president that was elected with a majority.

I am not trying to protect the character, some of his decisions were unforgivable, and the way he seized power, out of sheer brutal strength, was not something pleasant, but circumstances were glum indeed. There was record inflation under Allende's regime, a significant step toward the USSR and socialism, there was even some repression against workers' strikes, meaning Allende was not the hero some seem to see when talking about him

Overthrowing a government because of mismanagement goes against the most basic fundamentals of democracy. If a government makes a mess the population should vote another party in power the next elections, the army should't stage a coup.

In any case I don't see anybody advocating a coup against the Bush regime; he has made a mess that's way bigger than Allende's.


Edited by Mixcoatl - 01-Nov-2008 at 23:07

Originally posted by Blueglasnost Originally posted by Mixcoatl That's how the Chilean electoral system worked. If you don't consider that democratic then before 1990 Chile has never been a democracy except for the 1964-1970 period. Frei was the only president that was elected with a majority.   Democracy can be seen under different facets yet I have never said Chile was undemocratic back in 1970, I have actually said it would not fit OUR definition of democracy, this regime generally meaning a majority of voters has endorsed a candidate. Perhaps I am guilty of anachronism on this one.