Pinochet dies aged 91

[Eleven Mike]

I'm not sure that anyone in this thread has excused or defended any human rights abuses.  But I didn't read every word, either.  I think what these apologists are trying to do is simply point out the good that was accomplished by Pinochet, compared to other strongmen. 

But I don't pretend to know much about the situation and won't take one side or another. 

[The Rabbi]

From this AM's WSJ editorial page:

The Pinochet Paradox
A Cold War dictator who paved the way for democracy.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

Augusto Pinochet died on Sunday at the age of 91, more than 18 years after he agreed to a 1988 plebiscite that turned him out of power. The standard Pinochet narrative is to emphasize the loss of liberty during the 17 years he ruled the country as a military dictator. The real story is more complicated.

Though General Pinochet became a devil symbol of the international left, he was a far more complex figure and cannot be understood apart from the global Cold War conflict of which he and his country were a part. Pinochet's legacy is a paradox--a long string of them.

He took power in a coup in 1973, but ultimately he created an environment where democratic institutions would prevail. He is responsible for the death and torture that occurred on his watch, but had Salvador Allende succeeded in turning Chile into another Cuba, many more might have died.

Late in life it emerged that he had probably stashed millions in personal bank accounts. But he also supported the free-market reforms that have made Chile prosperous and the envy of its neighbors. Finally, his legacy includes a Chile that is democratic, that truly belongs to the Chilean people; it exists in stark contrast to the nearly five decades of personal (and soon to be fraternal) dictatorship that Fidel Castro is leaving in Cuba.

Pinochet proved the truth of Jeane Kirkpatrick's Cold War distinction between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, with the former far more likely to evolve into freer places. That the international left still gives Castro higher marks is something for democrats everywhere to ponder. The popular notion that the U.S. sanctioned the coup or condoned Pinochet's torture also hasn't held up under historical scrutiny. In particular, his behavior can't be understood without considering the behavior of the Allende government he deposed.

Contrary to mythology, Allende was never a popular figure in Chile. He garnered only 36% of the vote in the 1970 election. His path to the presidency had to run through Chile's congress. Reluctantly, the Christian Democrats agreed to let him go forward only after he promised to accept a "Statute of Guarantees" supporting the rule of law. In office, he moved fast and hard to the left.

Government threats to jail journalists in 1972 brought condemnation from the Inter-American Press Association and the International Press Institute. That same year, shortages and spiraling inflation sent Chilean housewives to the streets banging pots and pans. In the first days of 1973, Allende proclaimed government rationing.

In March, he tried to further accelerate the state's unlawful assault on private property through expropriation. In May the 14 members of the Supreme Court denounced "an open and willful contempt of judicial decisions [by the executive]" that threatened an "imminent breakdown of legality." Throughout 1973 street violence escalated. The coup came in September.

The official death toll of the Pinochet dictatorship is some 3,197. An estimated 2,796 of those died in the first two weeks of fighting between the army and the Allende-armed militias. The balance died in the next 17 years. The Pinochet dictatorship was fraught with illegality. Civil liberties were lost and opponents tortured. But over time, with the return of private property, the rule of law and a freer economy, democratic institutions also returned. An economic crisis in 1982 led to even more economic liberalization.

Let no one doubt that, for the peoples of many nations, the Cold War years were dark times. Like Spain's Franco, Pinochet was an authoritarian who resisted the Communists and created the foundation of what would become a democratic transition. What remains is a Chile that has the healthiest economy in Latin America, a free press and a competitive political system that has allowed Socialists to come to power.

[richyoung]

301 victims over 17 years?  How does that compare with, say, post Civil War reconstruction?

[Iain]

Interesting editorial.

Some things to note, things I've picked up on in only a few hours of looking at the Pinochet and pre-Pinochet situation. Prior to Pinochet Chile was a democracy, so how a dictator is credited with paving the way for democracy when in order to do so he had to rule as a dictator after doing away with democracy for 17 years is a little beyond me.

Allende attracted 36% of the vote in a three way election, not a two way election. It's not 51% of the vote, but that's how the system worked and according to the constitution of Chile Allende ended up being the legitimately elected ruler. That's not to say that I believe that there is no situation where a elected govt. can be ousted legitimately, but there is pretty much no situation where I'd accept the alternative as being a military junta of that variety.

The article also drops into the (now familiar) terrritory of comparing Pinochet and Castro as though those were the only real prospects, and also as though condemnation of one implies support for the other. The insistence on the numbers, whilst relevant, indicates to me the need to point out that it wasn't that bad after all, I mean he wasn't Stalin or anything.

It appears that Allende wasn't good for the economy, nor would I expect his kind of reforms to have been. Note though that for all the article's insistence on 'unlawful assault on private property', Pinochet himself never privatised the Allende-nationalised copper industry.

Lastly, the Franco comparision again. Not sure how Franco can lay claim to having paved the way for a democratic nation either, seeing as he had no intention of doing so and had named the King as his successor. Besides, saying that Franco 'resisted Communists' is a gross oversimplification, in fact in the early days of the Spanish Civil War it would be far more accurate to say that Franco resisted anarchists, communists, democrats and just about everybody else who wasn't keen on a military takeover. Soviet money and weapons later became the only real prospect of defeating Nazi and Italian backed troops and the communists became the dominant power in the Republican alliance, some commanders even joined the communist party just to ensure that their troops got supplies and weren't abandoned without reinforcements. Also note that the 'Spanish economic miracle' happened after Franco.

For me at least, this isn't about left and right, this isn't about being economically pure, this is about both sides manning up and admitting that on both sides there have been those that subscribe to their doctrines and still have found the time to abuse human rights and to rule despotically. So if the left keep bringing Pinochet and Franco up, it's probably because the right keeps lazily associating socialist (and 'liberal') policies with the genocides of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

[Iapetus]

For me at least, this isn't about left and right, this isn't about being economically pure, this is about both sides manning up and admitting that on both sides there have been those that subscribe to their doctrines and still have found the time to abuse human rights and to rule despotically. So if the left keep bringing Pinochet and Franco up, it's probably because the right keeps lazily associating socialist (and 'liberal') policies with the genocides of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

I think this is to a large extent the consequence of the "tribal" nature of politics.

People declare themselves "Left Wing" or "Right Wing", "Conservative", "Socialist", etc, and then tend to automatically support other people who have made the same declaration.

Common examples being all the people who will argue passionately for human rights, criticise Bush/Blair for their authoratarian policies, but then sing praises of Castro or anyone who "stands up to America", or even in some cases Stalin/Mao.

Or on the other side, those who want to excuse everything Pinochet or Mussolini did on the grounds that they were "standing against Communism".


A similar problem can be seen when politicians who's party is in power slavishly back legislation that they who fight to the death against if an opposition party proposed it.

[The Rabbi]

Is there anyone here who has excused Pinochet's human rights abuses because he "stood up to communism" or for any other reason?  I havent seen it.  I have seen people pointing out the obvious and large differences between Pinochet and the leftist thug dictators, and mention some of the good things he did, uncharacteristic of dictators generally, while aknowledging his many shortcomings.  But some people seem fixated on the concept of "de morttuis nihil nisi malum."