Apologists and fantasists

As the obituaries of Augusto Pinochet rolled in over the last couple of days, several claims were made repeatedly as an attempt to mitigate what was almost universal condemnation of the murderous dictator. It is understandable that those who have benefited from the rule of a brutal despot will seek to describe him as in some way necessary, excused or even good. Pinochet is no exception: even supposedly neutral news agencies have been busily repeating the myths that the General either solved Chile's economic problems or saved the country from communism.

The economic myth is the most convincing to those not versed in rudimental economics: things didn't seem to be going very well at all when he took over but when he eventually lost power, Chile's economy was a model for Latin America. In fact, this myth is easily debunked on various grounds: (i) there's no telling how the economy would have fared had democracy been allowed to flourish; (ii) Chile's economy only really picked up in around 1982 when the Chicago Boys policies of prior years were abandoned; (iii) the real upturn in the economy coincides perfectly with a sharp increase in the value of copper, the country's prime metal resource.

That Pinochet prevented communists from taking over Chile is a slightly more slippery myth. Of course, it is true that during Pinochet's rule, communists were interned, tortured and murdered - ensuring, along with the proscription of left-wing parties, that communists couldn't take over the country. However, the country had not undergone a communist revolution and while many critics of President Allende argued that his election opened the door to a revolutionary state, it cannot be said for sure if this would have ever happened. What Pinochet did rid Chile of was the chance for its citizens to decide how they wanted to be governed… which, presumably could have included 'soviet republic' as a possible result.

What's really important about Pinochet is that he never faced justice for his many crimes against humanity. This is greatly unfortunate and the UK's 'Labour' government helped him smiling on his way to freedom, despite attempts by the judiciary and even the Lords(!) to extradite him to Spain. Is it right that former heads of state had a supposed immunity to prosecution? No. Is it right that the House of Lords passed a landmark ruling in this regard? Yes. Is it sickening that Labour ended up letting him go home (he looked very sprightly walking down the runway in Santiago)? Yes.

The brief time I've spent with victims of Pinochet's rule has had a massive effect on me. These weren't communist revolutionaries, Stalinist stooges or, for that matter, liars. They were idealists who elected a left-wing government in Chile with the hope of a new age of progressive, socialist government which defended the poor and stood up to big business. I know it's not always a case of either/or but the Chilean refugees I met helped me to realise that sometimes, it's better to be on the losing side. Call us fantasists, fools and losers… we don't care: we know that it's right to stand up for what we know to be right. There's nothing wrong with wanting the world to be a better place.

Share This
December 12, 2006 | Filed Under Capital, Politics 

Comments

2 Responses to “Apologists and fantasists”

  1. Graeme on December 13th, 2006 2:42 pm

    Carlos Castresana, one of the lawyers behind bringing the case against Pinochet, is reported in the press today claiming that it was the combination of Blair, Aznar and Chilean politician Eduardo Frei who ensured between them that he got his sick note accepted and was allowed to go home.

  2. Daniel Valls on December 13th, 2006 3:48 pm

    Awesome article. It is still hard for ne to swallow that this man was in British hands ready to be tried and it was let go with a pad in the shoulder.

Leave a Reply




Close
E-mail It