Chile's road to democracy

[CBL4]

Sometimes we forget the political successes in the world.

This fall Chile has finally gotten rid of the last vestiges of Pinochet's dictatorship. The president can now fire the the armed forces commanders. All the senators selected by Pinochet and the army will be removed and replaced by elected ones. In 15 years Chile has gone from a dictatorship to a fairly successful liberal democracy. It has been done without fanfare but it is important.

Chile's road was not ideal. No one has been prosecuted for their crimes. Pinochet and the military enjoyed partial power for too long. But it was a peaceful transition that worked.

I think Chile could be used as a model for other transitions to democracy. Let the tyrants fade from power without punishment if it means that the suffering ends. Mugabe and the Saudi tyrants deserve prison but let them live with their ill gotten gains if it means the Zimbabweans and Saudis can live without oppression. Iraq shows the alternative way - Saddam will be executed but the people are suffering.

Granting amnesty to tyrants is deplorable. But it is worth it if can lead to freedom and prosperity.

CBL

 

[Hutch]

Of course, Chile has had to make the transition from Dictatorship to Democracy (and good on them, I say) in large part because Pinochet overthrew a democratically elected leftist government...and exactly how much the US/CIA was involved in that overthrow is still a matter of debate.

Which is exactly why I posted this...

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Sometimes we forget the political successes in the world.

Yes, but the way to democracy has not been easy. It's been now 15 years since the end of dictatorship and the country is still somehow divided in the "good" on one side and the "bad" on the other, in those who stand in this wing and those who stand in the opposite wing. I think the political success is in the fact that those differences have faded away to an important, noticeable extent.

It all began with Salvador Allende who used to cry out loud that his government was only for the poor, and that the wealthy were evil oppresors. This "message", this contempt, ended up in less than 3 years with a country financially broken, and with a Constitution that was no longer respected.

Pinochet came to the stage because of popular clamor that something had to be done. What happened next is one of the saddest episodes in Chilean life, for which I feel embarrased to say the least, and whose details are well known worldwide.

In 15 years Chile has gone from a dictatorship to a fairly successful liberal democracy.

Yes, democracy is already founded in solid ground, which in part has let us enjoy a quite prosperous economy, at least compared with our neighbouring countries.

Chile's road was not ideal. No one has been prosecuted for their crimes.

Well, that's not totally accurate. All who had something to do with the atrocities committed have been prosecuted, many of them are now in jail, including Manuel Contreras was was the "Opressor in Chief" of Pinochet's government. And the prosecutions continue to this day. Pinochet himself has saved from prosecution because his alleged poor health makes him unable to stand trial (he's nearly 90).

I think Chile could be used as a model for other transitions to democracy.

Well, Pinochet gave up power voluntarily after he lost a plebiscite in 1989. I'm illiterate in world politics, I may be wrong, but I don't know of any dictator that has voluntarily retired to give way to democracy. If I'm wrong on this, at least it's not a very common gesture among dictators.

 

[aerocontrols]

Sometimes we forget the political successes in the world.

This fall Chile has finally gotten rid of the last vestiges of Pinochet's dictatorship. The president can now fire the the armed forces commanders. All the senators selected by Pinochet and the army will be removed and replaced by elected ones. In 15 years Chile has gone from a dictatorship to a fairly successful liberal democracy. It has been done without fanfare but it is important.

Chile's road was not ideal. No one has been prosecuted for their crimes. Pinochet and the military enjoyed partial power for too long. But it was a peaceful transition that worked.

I think Chile could be used as a model for other transitions to democracy. Let the tyrants fade from power without punishment if it means that the suffering ends. Mugabe and the Saudi tyrants deserve prison but let them live with their ill gotten gains if it means the Zimbabweans and Saudis can live without oppression. Iraq shows the alternative way - Saddam will be executed but the people are suffering.

Granting amnesty to tyrants is deplorable. But it is worth it if can lead to freedom and prosperity.

CBL

Count me in favor of tyrants giving up their power in the manner that Pinochet did. He seems to have been a rather rare bird when it comes to dictators, though. Does anyone have another example?

The list of dictators removed by outside military force is not limited to merely Iraq, however. Do you really believe that it is the standard by which such actions should be judged?

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted byPatricio Elicer
Well, that's not totally accurate. All who had something to do with the atrocities committed have been prosecuted, many of them are now in jail, including Manuel Contreras was was the "Opressor in Chief" of Pinochet's government. And the prosecutions continue to this day. Pinochet himself has saved from prosecution because his alleged poor health makes him unable to stand trial (he's nearly 90).

I was aware of the Pinochet prosecution but I did not realize that others were prosecuted as well. I thought they had amnesty. I did not like Pinochet's prosecution in either Spain or Chile because it sets a bad precedence for other dictators who are considering stepping down. Did the other people originally have amnesty?

CBL

 

[Bjorn]

Count me in favor of tyrants giving up their power in the manner that Pinochet did. He seems to have been a rather rare bird when it comes to dictators, though. Does anyone have another example?

Brazil might be one? We have Brazilians on the board ....

 

[CBL4]

Actually several other dictators have accepted exile in exchange for leaving their countries. Idi Amin, Charles Taylor (Liberia) and Alfredo Stroessner (Paraguay) are three that I know of. I am not sure of others who were allowed to live in their own country especially with some power.

Allegedly, the United Arab Emirates was trying to get Saddam to accept exile but it failed when the Arab League would not act on it.

Saddam Hussein accepted an 11th-hour offer to flee into exile weeks ahead of the U.S.-led 2003 invasion, but Arab League officials scuttled the proposal, officials in this Gulf state claimed.

The exile initiative was spearheaded by the late president of the United Arab Emirates, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, at an emergency Arab summit held in Egypt in February 2003, Sheik Zayed’s son said in an interview aired by Al-Arabiya TV during a documentary. The U.S.-led coalition invaded on March 19 that year.
...
Sheik Zayed’s initiative would have given Saddam and his family exile and guarantees against prosecution in return for letting Arab League and U.N. experts run Iraq until elections could be held in six months, the official said.
...
The anonymous Emirates official said Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa did not bring the proposal to the summit’s discussion because Arab foreign ministers had not presented and accepted it as league protocol dictated.

At the time, Arab League leaders said the summit decided not to take up the idea, citing league rules barring interference in members’ domestic affairs.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9864433/

Too bad. It would have saved lots of lives.

CBL

 

[Patricio Elicer]

I was aware of the Pinochet prosecution but I did not realize that others were prosecuted as well. I thought they had amnesty. I did not like Pinochet's prosecution in either Spain or Chile because it sets a bad precedence for other dictators who are considering stepping down. Did the other people originally have amnesty?

CBL

There was indeed a "Law of Amnesty" instituted by Pinochet's government. But this law was soon overruled by the Senate on the democratic governments that followed.

Some officials of Pinochet's government are now Senators of The Republic, Pinochet himself is one of them. As senators they have what it's called in Spanish "fuero", that is a kind of protection against prosecution. Efforts are being made to this day to withdraw Pinochet's "fuero" so than he can be prosecuted. But his age and health are also important facts, that I think will eventually prevent him from being prosecuted.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted byPatricio Elicer
There was indeed a "Law of Amnesty" instituted by Pinochet's government. But this law was soon overruled by the Senate on the democratic governments that followed.

I guess I remember the law but did not realize it was overturned. I would oppose the overturning because it would threaten the future of democracy. But since it did not happen, perhaps my concerns are overblown.

I hate allowing tyrants and their thugs getting away scot free but it seems like a good price to pay for the end of tyranny. I always thought South Africa, Argentina and Chile were good examples of this. I prefered South Africa's version because it required a confession before getting amnesty. (BTW, I am aware that Argentina's amnesty has had lots of changes to it.)

Thanks for correcting me about Chile,

CBL

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Thanks for correcting me about Chile,

CBL

You're welcome!. I'll try to find out more about the amnesty and will keep you posted.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

I guess I remember the law but did not realize it was overturned. I would oppose the overturning because it would threaten the future of democracy. But since it did not happen, perhaps my concerns are overblown

Correction: the Amnesty Law has not been overturned as a whole. It turns out that it is in the hands of the Justice to decide, case by case, whether or not it is applicable. This is why many officials from the Pinochet era have been prosecuted and imprisioned.

 

[a_unique_person]

The Phillipines and "People Power".

 

[Luciana]

Brazil might be one? We have Brazilians on the board ....

We have two examples in Brazil or, if you will, two dictartorships (*) that gave way to democracy without the use of force.

Getulio Vargas rose to power in 1930, through popular clamor, after a Revolution that ousted the democratically elected president (if the election could be trusted at all). He was elected President in 1934.

In 1937, one year before the elections, he established a dictatorship that would last until 1945. He gave up power because the hipocrisy was rampant - Brazilian soldiers when to WWII to fight against dictatorships, and when they came back, what? So he called elections in 1945. The candidate he supported won.

Getulio Vargas was the patron saint of Brazil's industrialization. He established advanced laws for the protection of workers. He built our first steel company, later founded our first oil company, Brazil had great economic gains.

He died in poverty.

Not that I'm his fan - he also established censorship and during his government there were tortures and political prisons. One of the victims of the regime was Olga Benario, the German Jewish revolutionary who in 1935, 5 months pregnant, was shipped to Hitler.

The second dictatorship lasted from 1964 to 1985, (*) because some argue it can't be a dictartorship is there's no dictator, therefore the most correct term would be "authoritarian regime". The military took power but from the very beginning they were aware they would have to give it up, so much so that the Presidents they elected among themselves should be ones who, they thought, would give up power, and they did not allow reelections.

Left-wing groups, with their protests, and the press, which never conformed to censorship, quickened the process of redemocratization. Indirect democratic elections, held by the Congress, were called in 1984.

Democracy takes some getting used to. The last military President, João Figueiredo, was intent in providing a peaceful transition, so he said "Those who oppose democracy will be arrested and beaten!"

 

[Luciana]

I must add that Getulio Vargas was again elected President in 1950. He committed suicide in 1954. To this day, he is a much beloved President/Dictator.

I'm just saying this to add shades of grey to the matter and play devil's advocate a little. Even though he was a dictator for some time, with all that entails, including the trumping of civil liberties, he did lay grounds for Brazil's subsequent development, improved worker's life and still inspires respect in all those who study the period.

Btw, it can even be argued that Brazil grew at its fastest during authoritarian regimes. In the late 60s, early 70s, GDP was growing 10-12-15% a year!!! A staggering rate never to be repeated. And now I'll shut up lest you think I favor dictatorships!

 

[Luciana]

Oh, we did have total amnesty, for both sides. There was an old guy in my neighborhood whose name appeared in all list of torturers. When he died, I won't claim I was sad, btw.

You're right, CBL4. Unfortunately, in order to move on, you simply have to forget injustices a little. If you waddle in it, you just perpetuate a miserable situation. The victims of the regime are now receiving indemnizations. The criminals only have to deal with their consciences, and, if you will, the hostility of common folk.

Disappearances, murders, tortures - those are all very emotional subjects, and take Argentina, to this day they're taking those criminals to trials. Bitterness and resentment never seems to go away. The most important is that democracy won't allow those things to keep happening.

 

[CBL4]

King Juan Carlos of Spain was designated as Franco heir to power. Instead of exercising his absolute powers, he took Spain to democracy to the displeasure of the Franco's supporters. He later stood up to army officers who were attempting a coup.

He was very temporarily a dictator who voluntarily gave up his powers. He is a great stateman.

CBL

 

[CBL4]

A authoritarian government can promote sound economic policies more easily than a fledgling democracy. Most do not but they can if they want to. The other problem is that the successful businesses under an authoritarian regime are considered apologists for the regime. This makes their sound business decisions unpopular. When the authoritarian regime finally falls, the baby is thrown out with the bath water.

There are exceptions but it is a general trend.

CBL