Published:

15 comments

Ryan is a Parliamentary assistant and freelance writer.

It
is in fashion among my flatmates to rank dictators. Several hours are
spent rating each military leader, based on a series of different criteria:
amount killed, type of people killed, methods of torture, and number
of wars undertaken.

Hitler is the omnipresent Manchester
United, regardless of one’s position on the political spectrum. Heavyweights
such as Pol Pot are no surprise.  The list goes on: Milosevic,
Hussein, Mao and Amin. Competition for a place in the elite premiership
is extremely competitive. Spaces are limited. And so a second tier of
dictators, supposedly less cruel and barbaric, has been created.

But this has not been merely
banter for a bunch of history boffins. The game has spread into the
discourse of Anglo-American political leaders. For the Bush-Blair partnership,
recently hung Hussein has been a greater threat to Anglo-American liberal
democracy than the Zimbabwean tyrant Mugabe. Yet, cut to twenty years
earlier and Hussein was tolerated, Thatcher even permitting the provision
of arms to the ruthless tyrant to fight off the current menace to Western
politics, Russian ally Iran. Trivial to the student, the ranking of
dictators is a serious game played by past prime ministers and presidents.

It achieves a legitimisation
of the political model that they preside over. Likewise, it de-legitimises
the contemporary antithesis, be it communism pre-1990 or potential-to-terrorise
dictatorships post-2001. Indeed, Thatcher’s children fear Marxist
dictators as if they were the worst of all mythical characters in fables.
Stalin is the big bad wolf, his curvaceous moustache a recurrent image
in my nightmares. Today’s generation will be weary of the despots
from the Middle East, fearful of their alleged weapons of mass destruction.
The government of the day- speaking on TV, writing in newspapers, regulating
the national curriculum- ensure we know who the main enemy to the Anglo-American
political sphere is. No wonder historians are calling for a change in
children’s education. Too much history of a particular region or war,
usually Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia, is bad for a child’s
safety. Aware of the lurking witch in the woods, yet the child is blind
to the less known troll.

Western-friendly or economically
liberal dictatorships receive less baiting. The closer to the west,
the more likely a place in the second division. Hence the low ranking
of Franco, an ally of NATO during the Cold War, and Pinochet. Banning
the unions and dismantling Allende’s state-owned infrastructure of
industries, Pinochet ruled Chile for seventeen years, fashioning a successful
neo-liberal economic experiment with his circle of advisers from Chicago
University. He achieved the lowest inflation rate in all of Latin America
by 1989 and a drop in unemployment to an impressive 14% by 1988. He
strangled socialism and reinvigorated the sick economy according to
the rules of the Anglo-American game. So the Western political elite
tried to moderate his brutal regime, Thatcher publicly thanking him
for his support during the Falklands War.

Yet, the very concept of ranking
dictators- all of them opponents of freedom and respect for human life-
seems sickening. A bad egg is a bad egg, no matter how white its interior.
Western leaders should not rank dictators; they ought to judge them
as an undifferentiated entity, a tribe of equally barbaric men. This
would avoid the inconsistency that often leads to criticism of why X
was attacked and Y left to continue crimes against humanity.

Is Thatcher wrong to imply
Pinochet was different? The National Commission for Truth and Reconciliation
reported that Pinochet’s carabineros killed 3,172 people, using shameful
techniques such as the ‘submarino’- the holding of a victim’s
head under water almost to the point of suffocation- and ‘la parilla’-
the application of electric shocks on the mouth, temples and genitals.
Augustus is surely in the same league as the rest. Well, no. I believe
Pinochet does not warrant a place in the premiership league of dictators.

Does that logically lead me
to a perverted and insensitive assumption that he was benign and democratic
for killing all those political leftists? Of course he wasn’t. But
it’s not as black and white as that. He has a unique identity as a
political leader, neither evil dictator nor flawless democrat.

The human rights abuses he
committed can never be justified. But what excludes him from being one
of those grotesque witches, wolves and dragons was his intention for
Chile. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Nasser. They all wanted their countries
to be great, but permanently under their rule and at the expense of
neighbouring nations. Pinochet did not want to maintain and expand his
dictatorship across South America. He did not want his beloved “narrow
land” to be forever repressed under military rule. A democratic, prosperous
Chile was his mission.

Salvador Allende was obliterating
the stability and democracy of Chile in the early 1970s with what Pinochet
deemed the “perils associated with International Marxism”. Aside
from a blip between 1927 and 1931, Chile had enjoyed 163 years of democratic
rule prior to 1973, the fifth most democratic nation in the world between
1900 and 1950 according to the UN. Allende was engineering an economic
and social disaster. Inflation was at the highest in Chilean history-
a worrying 180.3%. A culture of violence and segregation was spiralling,
the Movement of the Revolutionary Left illegally occupying factories
and instigating bombings in the countryside. Chile was on the brink
of a civil war, the forces of the left and right ready for radical action.
Allende installed Pinochet as Army Commander to restore Chile. Unfortunately,
Pinochet thought democracy could only be regained with Allende gone.

He kept to his word. Historians
Paul Drake and Ivan Jaksic report on a “protracted transition towards
redemocratisation”. In the early eighties, intellectuals and arts
blossomed and the proportion of senators who were elected was a high
82% for a dictatorship. Instead of showing allegiance to the club of
dictators in 1983, he decided to help democratic Britain fight off the
Argentine military junta. By 1988, he gave his people a plebiscite to
determine whether he should remain dictator. He had done enough to salvage
Chile from communism it seemed, and they voted for his removal as dictator.
He willingly stepped down. Thanks to Pinochet’s strangling of Marxism,
Chile has enjoyed a democratic system dominated by two centre-left parties
since. This restoration of democracy guarantees he does not find a position
among the world’s worst tyrants.

Following his death last month,
there will be an attempt to finalise his legacy. The route to Chilean
stability was ugly. This cannot be denied. Ariel Dorfman writes in his
play ‘Widows’ about the torment of women whose politically active
husbands were taken and later returned when the nearby river brought
their bodies backed. But Western political thought should not led the
darkness solely epitomise his rule.  Nor should we conclude with
the opposing view, that Pinochet was a democrat who did nothing but
good. This would only add to simmering tension in Chile where the writing
of his legacy is still an alarmingly bitter contest.

Instead, western discourse
should avoid the temptation to pigeonhole Pinochet as a typical dictator
or a charismatic saviour of a nation. Rather, we should be prepared
to accept that Pinochet’s actual effect on Chile was one that a brought
a complicated montage of great ills and enormous benefits.

15 comments for: Ryan Shorthouse: The legacy of Pinochet

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.