What if Chile's President Allende had not been overthrown in 1973?

[GIGObuster]

@Rini

Allende may have been at odds with the MIR in the sense that he wanted a democratic way (rigging elections) and the MIR wanted a more violent way to communism. However, Allende frequently gave amnesty to groups like the MIR, calling them “young idealists”. In this interview, MIR member Andrés Pascal recalls that his organization had a very good relationship with Allende.

I know Spanish Rini, if you thought this cite helped your insinuations you are wrong, granting amnesty to armed groups does not mean that you are in favor of their actions:

The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (a Non profit group located in Oklahoma City had this recently in their database:

MIR continued its terrorist attacks during Allende’s presidency. MIR claimed that terrorist actions would convince Allende that political participation for socialist organizations was not enough, and thereby prompt Allende to create a Marxist state in Chile. MIR could not have been more wrong. MIR’s policy of actively terrorizing Chilean civilians while enjoying the amnesty of Allende’s government created the appearance that Allende was an active supporter of Communist terrorism. President Allende was overthrown in 1973 by a military coup.

Current Goals: Predictably, the Movement of the Revolutionary Left continued to engage in terrorism during Pinochet’s regime. Even after democracy was restored to Chile, MIR was actively engaged in terrorism. Beyond MIR’s self-professed communist ideology, the group has shown little understanding of any political nuance. MIR demonstrated the willingness to engage continuously in illegal activities despite fundamental shifts in Chile’s political landscape. In the 1980s, Cuba withdrew support for the Movement of the Revolutionary Left. The group has been largely inactive since 1995.

Yes, even Cuba withdrew their support to those yahoos.

It counts more to me what leaders did in the way to power, and Allende as the leader of the UP decided to go for elections. Even in your cite, Allende got to convince the guys of MIR (for a while) that the violent way was not the way, the guy from MIR even called what Allende was doing “Allenism”. I don’t think that was a term of endearment.

In your cite there is also this:

“Ours was one more a more insurrectionary, anti-institutional idea of what to do. There is a difference between the guerrilla of MIR and other movements, because we came with a conclusion that originated from the Chilean reality that is completely distant from the official version, that is the myth of the democracy in Chile.”

Andrés Pascal also reports that even though there was respect and good will, policy was a different matter:

’ ’ All this explains why the 11 of September of 1973 Miguel calls through Tati - the secretary -, who was our official channel with the president, saying to him that we were organizing a column to go towards the Currency building. We thought that it was better than resisting in the popular districts. Allende responded also through Tati that no, that he is going to die there, he does not leave there. It sends in addition a message from him to Miguel that touched him.’’

How moving, but this shows to me that MIR had little to offer Allende, moreover: he refused their aid, That to me shows that Allende truly did not believe on the solution MIR was proposing. and if you have not noticed yet, having only a secretary as the official channel to the president shows the actual level of influence the MIR had over Allende.

The concussion of the interview leaves me now with even less doubts that MIR was not consulted or asked for help, they lament in the end that they (the MIR) were not flexible enough with Allende, MIR was not a part of the UP.

And now I have more respect for Allende for not falling for the MIR solution even in the end.

[Rini]

So we’re supposed to admire Allende for granting amnesty to left wing terrorists?

And even if Allende opposed the MIR’s violent solution, he still rigged an election, so he was by no means “democratically elected”.

[New_Iskander]

The picture emerges that Chile was going to hell as a country and was going to fall under dictatorship, either by the Left or the Right.

Perhaps Allende had no choice but to rule by decree, because any lasting political compromise was no longer possible.

Certainly, Pinochet junta didn’t restore democracy for many long years.

Still, whence the naive assumption that Left dictator would be better?

History shows that Left dictatorships are much nastier then the Right.

Right wing military dictators like Franco or Pinochet commited many atrocities, but at least they took care of the Economy and didn’t conduct any social experiments.

With Left dictators you get ten times the paranoid slaughter plus lunatic social engineering and schizoid economic destruction.

Any dictatorship is terrible, but if we have to have a dictatorship, make mine Right wing.

[GIGObuster]

@Rini

So we’re supposed to admire Allende for granting amnesty to left wing terrorists?

No, for rejecting their solutions.

And even if Allende opposed the MIR’s violent solution, he still rigged an election so he was by no means “democratically elected”.

I will have to see more evidence for that, every accusation I have seen in my life of the left rigging elections is suspect, more so if one considers what happened in El Salvador and in Venezuela. It is important to note that right now in Chile Pinochet is facing trial and the left (the one that did not took arms) is in position to win again, it is silly to pretend that Allende had little support.

[GIGObuster]

@New Iskander

The picture emerges that Chile was going to hell as a country and was going to fall under dictatorship, either by the Left or the Right.

Perhaps Allende had no choice but to rule by decree, because any lasting political compromise was no longer possible.

And then, based on all showed, he was going to lose the next elections.

Certainly, Pinochet junta didn’t restore democracy for many long years.

Still, whence the naive assumption that Left dictator would be better?

It is not naive when elections are not suspended by the left. Once again, you are naive enough to ignore the example of Nicaragua.

History shows that Left dictatorships are much nastier then the Right.

Once again, it is if they not allow elections.

Right wing military dictators like Franco or Pinochet committed many atrocities, but at least they took care of the Economy and didn’t conduct any social experiments.

I posted already that Hitler and many other fascists DID social experimentation.
And Franco’s Spain remained one of the poorest nations in Europe.

With Left dictators you get ten times the paranoid slaughter plus lunatic social engineering and schizoid economic destruction.

Yes, but Allende did not reach that level.

Any dictatorship is terrible, but if we have to have a dictatorship, make mine Right wing.

No thanks, no dictatorship for me, and what you are saying is precisely what guys like Hitler and Pinochet counted on their way to conquest.

[New_Iskander]

@GIGObuster

And then, based on all showed, he was going to lose the next elections.

Why do you keep repeating this? Didn’t you notice:

…the Chilean Constitution did not allow a president to hold two consecutive terms, but allowed multiple non-consecutive ones…

[GIGObuster]

@New Iskander

Why do you keep repeating this? Didn’t you notice:

Then your tirade makes less sense, Allende was not going to be a dictator, if not Allende, then whoever the UP was going to put as leader next time was not going to win.

[New_Iskander]

@GIGObuster

…what you are saying is precisely what guys like Hitler and Pinochet counted on their way to conquest.

Pinochet and Hitler have nothing in common.

Pinochet was a top Army man, completely apolitical, didn’t lead any mass movement, didn’t engage in any social programs and risky wars.

He stepped in to prevent his country from complete disintegration.

He cracked down very hard on internal opposition, but that was exactly what he said he was going to do.

In the end, he improved the economy, put Chile on the way to prosperity and restored democratic institutions.

All of this is completely antithetical to Hitler. On the other hand, Hitler has a lot in common with Lenin and Stalin.

[GIGObuster]

:rolleyes:

The point was that dictators love to see attitudes like yours. Oh and Hitler also improved the German economy. Today Germans know him as the biggest fraud, and Chileans see Pinochet as the murderer he was.

[New_Iskander]

Oh No, Pinochet murdered people! But what if it was for the best?

Think how better the world would be if Lenin, Stalin and Hitler were murdered early.

[GIGObuster]

@New Iskander

Oh No, Pinochet murdered people! But what if it was for the best?

Think how better the world would be if Lenin, Stalin and Hitler were murdered early.

If WWII had not occurred, I would not be alive today. (Family story) I only mention that to show how shallow your point of view is. But more seriously, history shows that others were in the wings ready to assume the position of those dictators, after all, you offer plenty of evidence that many people are willing to sacrifice their freedom for their security.

[GIGObuster]

@New Iskander

Oh No, Pinochet murdered people! But what if it was for the best?

Think how better the world would be if Lenin, Stalin and Hitler were murdered early.

Come to think of it, this post of yours is the most reprehensible one I have ever seen in this board.

[BrainGlutton]

@Wesley Clark

Yeah, I like making stuff up. Sometimes. Sometimes I just read the entire article though because it is easier than making stuff up. Look towards the middle of the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_coup_of_1973

The Chamber of Deputies calls on the military

But that says only Allende was accused of those things, Wesley. Accused by political opponents in the Chamber of Deputies. You originally cited the link as proof he was guilty of the enumerated “acts of tyranny.”

[New_Iskander]

@GIGObuster

Come to think of it, this post of yours is the most reprehensible one I have ever seen in this board.

Oh yeah, I forgot, people shouldn’t kill people, thanks for the reminder.

What about the times when it’s either kill or be killed?

Would you support Lenin and Hitler early assassinations?

[Rini]

I will have to see more evidence for that, every accusation I have seen in my life of the left rigging elections is suspect, more so if one considers what happened in El Salvador and in Venezuela. It is important to note that right now in Chile Pinochet is facing trial and the left (the one that did not took arms) is in position to win again, it is silly to pretend that Allende had little support.

I’m not saying Allende had little support. He had a lot of support, but so did the right-wing candidate Jorge Alessandri. The final report of the Catholic University’s comission on electoral fraud leaves little room for doubt that electoral fraud did take place.

I know the report is now out of print, so I scanned my copy of it. I hope it’s readable:

Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Note that today’s left is much more centrist than Allende’s. DUring Allende’s time, the Socialist Party was best described as communist. Today, it is more center-left. And the leftist coalition also includes the Christian Democrats, which opposed Allende (and Pinochet too).

It is not naive when elections are not suspended by the left. Once again, you are naive enough to ignore the example of Nicaragua.

What’s so special about Nicaragua? The Sandinistas stayed in power for eleven years, killed their opponents, held an election on 1984 and won around 60% of the vote, and stepped down after loosing an election in 1990. Pinochet stayed in pwer for 17 years, killed his opponents, held a plebiscite on 1980, won around 60% of the vote, and stepped down in after loosing a plebiscite in 1988.

I posted already that Hitler and many other fascists DID social experimentation.
And Franco’s Spain remained one of the poorest nations in Europe.

But Pinochet’s Chile is now one of the most prosperous countries in South America.

Yes, but Allende did not reach that level.

I think hyperinflation of more than 100% certainly qualifies for “schizoid economic destruction”.

[GIGObuster]

@Rini

I’m not saying Allende had little support. He had a lot of support, but so did the right-wing candidate Jorge Alessandri. The final report of the Catholic University’s comission on electoral fraud leaves little room for doubt that electoral fraud did take place.

I came also from a Catholic latin American country, Taking also Venezuela as a more current example, I have to say I do not trust Catholic reports of this kind, when they also had an ax to grind.

What’s so special about Nicaragua? The Sandinistas stayed in power for eleven years, killed their opponents, held an election on 1984 and won around 60% of the vote, and stepped down after loosing an election in 1990. Pinochet stayed in pwer for 17 years, killed his opponents, held a plebiscite on 1980, won around 60% of the vote, and stepped down in after loosing a plebiscite in 1988.

That is not the point, the point was to show that to assume that the economy and society will collapse and use that to justify a coup is wrong (see Venezuela), when democracy is still allowed there is no excuse to change the situacion with peaceful means.

Regarding the Plebiscite, I think you are playing loose with the facts: Pinochet was not being challenged directly in 1980 and it was a Saddam Husein style Iraqi election:

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-2495.html

In 1978, however, a power struggle within the junta between Pinochet, commander of the Army of Chile (Ejército de Chile), and Gustavo Leigh Guzmán, the FACh commander, forced the military government to come to terms with its blueprint for the future of the country. Leigh resented the growing power and influence of Pinochet, his putative equal in the junta, and sought to force an early conclusion to the transition back to civilian rule in a form similar to the constitutional framework of the immediate past. Pinochet, basking in the power and authority of an executive with access to a powerful secret police network, the National Information Center (Centro Nacional de Información–CNI), which replaced the National Intelligence Directorate (Dirección Nacional de Inteligencia–DINA) in 1977, had no enthusiasm for an early return to civilian rule; rather, he hoped to institute more farreaching transformations of Chile’s institutions. The junta president was an admirer of long-time Spanish dictator Francisco Franco, whose 1975 funeral he had attended in one of his few trips abroad. Pinochet also viewed Franco’s political system as a model for Chile, one in which the armed forces could play a permanent guiding role. When Leigh was forcibly dismissed from the junta in April 1978, in a veritable coup within a coup, Pinochet’s position became unassailable. Within months, Pinochet instructed the constitutional commission, which had languished with no clear purpose, to produce a new constitution with a time frame more to his liking. When the Council of State (Consejo de Estado), headed by former president Jorge Alessandri Rodríguez (1958-64), softened some of the provisions of the draft and proposed a return to civilian rule by 1985, Pinochet balked and demanded a new, tougher version.

The “permanent” articles of the draft were designed to go into effect a decade after promulgation, and Pinochet was specifically named to preside over the country’s fortunes for an eight-year “transition” period. Pinochet further insisted that he be named to fill the first eight-year term of the “constitutional period” that followed, which would begin in 1990. The president’s advisers, however, were able to persuade him that ratification of the constitution in a plebiscite could be seriously jeopardized if it were too apparent that Pinochet would obtain an additional sixteenyear mandate.

To satisfy Pinochet’s ambitions, the designers of the constitution provided for a plebiscite to be held in late 1988 or 1989 on a single candidate to be designated by the four commanders of the armed forces (army commander Pinochet included) to lead the country in the next eight-year term. In an obscure provision, the text specifically exempted Pinochet from the article barring presidents from reelection, a clear sign that the general had every intention of perpetuating himself in power.

With the ratification of the constitution of 1980, in a highly irregular and undemocratic plebiscite characterized by the absence of registration lists, Pinochet achieved his objectives. Chile’s democratic parties had proved incapable of challenging the power of the military to impose its own blueprint for the future. After seven years of constitutional ambiguity and questionable political legitimacy, the military’s sweeping control over virtually every aspect of public life had become codified and sanctioned in an elaborate “democratic” ritual, which the authorities believed finally conferred on them the legitimacy of the popular will. With the economy at last on the upswing and a majority of voters resigned to accepting military rule as the only means of ensuring order and prosperity, Pinochet seemed invincible. As if to signal the government’s renewed confidence and continuing contempt for its political opponents, Andrés Zaldívar, the highly respected president of the Christian Democratic Party (Partido Demócrata Cristiano–PDC), was exiled for daring to question the plebiscite’s results.

Also worth noticing: Pinochet did not trust his military and that seems was one of the reasons he decided to find justification of his rule in a sham plebiscite, however this created an opening later see the next item:

But Pinochet’s Chile is now one of the most prosperous countries in South America.

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-2497.html

The reversal of fortune for Chile’s democratic opposition came very gradually. After massive protests in 1983, spearheaded by labor leaders buoyed by mass discontent in the wake of a sharp downturn in the nation’s economy.

…

By early 1988, fourteen parties had joined a loose coalition for the no vote. Moderate Socialists played a key role in convincing dubious Chilean leftists to register to vote, and the more radical wing of the Socialist Party finally followed suit. With little money and only limited freedom to operate, an all- volunteer force led by Socialists and Christian Democrats registered voters, organized training sessions for poll watchers, and collected the signatures needed to legalize parties. By the cutoff date, a record 92 percent of the voting-age population had registered to vote, and four parties had collected enough signatures to register poll watchers for 22,000 voting tables.

Despite inherently unfair campaign conditions, the military government made some efforts to provide a level playing field. The Constitutional Tribunal, to the annoyance of some hard-liners in the regime, issued a firm ruling arguing that the constitution requires the implementation of a series of measures that would guarantee an impartial vote and vote count. Ironically, these measures had not been applied in the plebiscite that had ratified the constitution itself in 1980. Although opposition leaders did not trust the government, a fair election was also in the government’s interest. Pinochet and his commanders were confident that the population’s fear of a return to the confrontations of the early 1970s, in combination with signs of economic recovery and a campaign run with military efficiency, would permit Pinochet to overwhelm the fractious opposition and let his detractors, both at home and abroad, know that he enjoyed broad popular legitimacy.

In the weeks before the plebiscite, the no campaign, finally granted access to television, stunned the nation with its unity and a series of upbeat, appealing advertisements that stressed harmony and joy in a reunited Chile, called for a return to democratic traditions, and hinted at the poverty and oppression average people had suffered under the dictatorship. In response, the government stepped up its official propaganda campaign, bombarding the airwaves with grim and far less appealing ads that reminded voters of the violence and disorder that had preceded the coup and warned that Pinochet’s opponents offered only more of the same.

On October 5, 1988, the voting proceeded in a quiet, orderly fashion, with military guards at each polling place, per tradition. By 9:00 P.M., the opposition’s computers had counted half a million votes and showed the no tally to be far ahead. However, the government kept delaying the release of its tallies, and state television finally switched to a comedy series from the United States.

After frantic behind-the-scenes negotiations and a failed effort by some government officials to provoke street violence as an excuse to cancel the plebiscite, government television announced, at 2:40 A.M., that with 71 percent of the vote counted, the no was far ahead. The following night, a grim-faced Pinochet appeared on television and acknowledged his defeat: 54.5 percent for the no, versus 43 percent for the yes. Pinochet’s acceptance of his electoral loss was a remarkable event. Despite the general’s evident ambition to remain in power, the firm discipline within Chile’s military establishment and the commitment of the other junta commanders, who had pledged to guarantee the vote’s outcome, prevented him from doing so.

[Rini]

So you ignore the Catholic University’s report because it is a “catholic organization”? That University is one of the two best universities in Chile for your information and its report is not to be taking lightly.

Regarding the plebiscite of 1980: Why do you accept claims that that plebiscite was s a sham and ignore claims that the 1980 election of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua was a sham? You’re quite selective about what evidence you believe in.

[Rini]

And the Catholic University’s report should not be treated as a “catholic report” because it is not. It is as valid as any other university’s report.

[New_Iskander]

In yet another twist of historical irony, Allende might enjoy the presumption of being morally superior to Pinochet, because Pinochet didn’t allow Allende to abuse power to his full potential.

I must say, the fact that Allende interfered with judicial process in favor of Marxist terrorists, combined with his expressed committment to make Chile a Marxist Socialist state are very grave portents for terrible things that might have come, was he not stopped in time.

[GIGObuster]

@Rini

So you ignore the Catholic University’s report because it is a “catholic organization”? That University is one of the two best universities in Chile for your information and its report is not to be taking lightly.

Regarding the plebiscite of 1980: Why do you accept claims that that plebiscite was s a sham and ignore claims that the 1980 election of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua was a sham? You’re quite selective about what evidence you believe in.

Nope, you are the one being selective and you are now falling into misleading territory:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/5/newsid_2538000/2538379.stm

Foreign observers

The Sandinistas have been at pains to convince the outside world, especially the US, that the elections were free and fair.

Approximately 400 independent foreign observers, including a number of Americans, were in Nicaragua to monitor proceedings.

The unofficial British election observer, Lord Chitnis, said proceedings were not perfect but he had no doubt the elections were fair.

You are indeed giving me fewer reasons to believe your position.

I also dismiss the Catholic University results when I consider the padding in the report about “other possible frauds”. That is not evidence. You have to explain why then in the runoff election, Allende came the clear winner.