Interestingly, they're on the same page as that notorious right-wing rag, the Washington Post, on this.

Do you have an actual argument against the Post's position, Chris, or is a one-line sneer sufficient?

It is sad that a one line sneer is not sufficient for some, given that even the man's defenders acknowledge he is responsible for the death of over 3,000 people.

Just the sneer for now.

Milan, if you actually read either the National Post editorial or the Washington Post one linked by Paul, you'll see that neither paper shies away from the thousands of murders and human rights violations committed by the Pinochet regime. They also both point out that his eventual acquiescence to democracy does not excuse these crimes (the WP even describes him as evil, a description I believe is warranted).

However, as both papers point out, Chile has become the success story of Latin America, most of which continues to struggle through the socialist mire. And both papers compare Pinochet's favourably with Castro--another evil dictator who has killed and persecuted thousands, but who will never relinquish his power, and under whom Cubans continue to suffer in poverty and desperation.

It's a bit embarrassing to have to summarize newspaper editorials for people who are obviously literate, but there it is. My question again: got any actual arguments?

I suppose Hitler and Mussolini made the trains run on time but surely that's not the point when it comes to assessing their respective 'legacies'.

I find it difficult to look past the disappearances and murders to see the 'good' done by Pinochet. The 'granted he did crack a few eggs' tone of the NPost and others seems to be lacking basic human decency. For an altogether different perspective, I'd direct others to Christopher Hitchen's article in Slate yesterday.

"I suppose Hitler and Mussolini made the trains run on time but surely that's not the point when it comes to assessing their respective 'legacies'."

Well, no. They caused the Second World War, after all, which is rather different than being one among many brutal South American dictators.

So what is the point exactly, kyliep? That evil tyrants cannot have mixed legacies? (So much for nuance, and for history.) That we should not be thankful for a peaceful transition to democracy and prosperity in a region known for neither? That we should not compare left- and right-wing dictators, lest the results make some delicate souls squirm uncomfortably?

Again: Argument?

Here, I'll make it easier for you, since you seem to be struggling with this.

One argument is that:

1) Nothing excuses Pinochet's crimes.
2) His role in Chile's transition to democracy is debatable, at best.
3) His behaviour after relinquishing power (in setting up immunity, fraudulently avoiding trials, etc.) demonstrates that his embrace of democracy was never sincere.

On 1), agreed, but neither the editorials nor I claimed that he should be so excused. On 2), I am no expert, but the fact is that Pinochet did allow elections and a democratic transition, when he could have done a Castro (or at least attempted to). On 3), agreed, and I sympathize with those who never got to see justice done.

See? It's not that much harder than sneering.

Thanks, National Post, for buttressing the progressive conviction that "free markets" = "whatever Pinochet did in Chile".

I actually wrote on this on my own blog. http://markovicblog.com.

My problem is not that leaders can't have mixed legacies. It's that when the bad so far outweighs the good so as to emphasize the latter seems to me morally bankrupt.

I also think Pinochet is given too much credit for Chile's success. Chile was a democracy, an imperfect one, but a democracy. Yes, he eventually stepped down and ended his military dictartorship but that was largely due to the fact that the people couldn't stand him and he wanted immunity from future prosecutions related to his brutality in office.

Jay, if "progressives" think that, they are truly beyond the reach of rational argument.

Milan, thanks.

Pinochet lost the 1988 referendum by 55%/45%--hardly an overwhelming thrashing, and a margin that--if carried by Quebec secessionists--would cause a major constitutional crisis in Canada. Other dictators have ignored more substantial majorities than that, but Pinochet stepped aside, to his credit.

But apart from that, history is packed with the mixed legacies of dictators, from the Caesars to English royalty and beyond. Some--Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollahs, perhaps Napoleon and Castro--have no positive legacies, or at least none which can be set against their crimes. It doesn't seem to me that Pinochet--by objective standards a relatively run-of-the-mill generalissimo whose major distinguishing feature is that he resigned without bloodshed--is in that class. Rather, I expect that he'll go down in the history books as yet another tyrant whose crimes went unpunished, but who stepped aside when the people voted against him.

There's an interesting (and surprisingly balanced) National Review symposium on Pinochet's legacy here.

Here, I'll make it easier for you, since you seem to be struggling with this...

actually, i'm not struggling all that much in my condemnation of Pinochet but I suspect that for many of the families of his victims, the fact that so many commentators see his economic policies as a counterbalance to his crimes, the struggle not to heave must be a great one indeed.

quite frankly, i found the nro symposium, which i'd read this morning before either the npost or tartcider, a little sickening in its praise of the late dictator ie. "...may he be forgiven for his later aberrations" .

i'm all for balance, but i can't see how leaving power voluntarily somehow compensates for his culpability in the deaths of thousands. if we're going to rank despots, yeah he's probably lower down the list than those that you've mentioned and fair enough, my hitler reference was simplistic and hamfisted. the fact that he's responsible for the deaths of thousands should kind of overshadow the fact that he implemented some sensible economic policies.

it's likely that when castro soon kicks it, we'll likely be subjected to articles and editorials praising him for providing health care to his people. these words of praise will sound no less revolting or hollow than those i've read today.

kyliep,

The argument you put forward is really just an expanded version of 1), from the list I made. I've already agreed with that. So did the NP and WP editorials, as well as several of the NR symposium participants.

To say that "Pinochet introduced reforms which helped lay the foundation for later prosperity, and then honored the results of a democratic plebescite removing him from power" in no way mitigates his crimes, but here's the thing: It does set him apart from most dictators. It is remarkable precisely because it is so rare, and it's that--rather than a desire to excuse his atrocities--that I suspect is behind the qualified praise.

If Castro or Kim Jong-Il or Robert Mugabe were to announce tomorrow that they would holding a referendum on introducing democracy to their countries, and then abide by the results, I'd expect to see that mentioned in their obituaries as a praiseworthy act alongside their crimes and ruinous policies, and would see nothing wrong with it. Of course, nothing of the sort will happen, but we will nevertheless (as you predict) see all kinds of gushing praise for that old mass-murderer Fidel, whose country will continue to suffer long after his death.

I don't think "honoring the results of a democratic plebescite" is particularly noteworthy or mitigates much of anything that Pinochet did. What happened was this: After 17 years in power, Pinochet realized that he could not hold on much longer; he cut himself a deal and stepped down. This was a man who deposed a democratically-elected leader in Allende; to somehow cast him as a believer in the democratic process is reaching and then some.

(African strongmen, incidentally, step down all the time when it is clear that they have too many enemies inside and outside their country. I refer you to Charles Taylor of Liberia as a notable example).

As for Mugabe, his party won the most recent elections in 2005. The elections were HIGHLY flawed to be sure but unfortunately the maniac still seems to enjoy a high degree of popular support inside his country, largely because he has portrayed his enemies as colonialists.

The reason that Pinochet is being praised, quite simply, is that he was anti-communist. I'd have more respect for these editorial writers if they'd just admit that and not comment on his democratic streak or supposed contributions to a prosperous Chile.

Milan - no, Pinochet did not 'cut a deal' after seventeen years in power. In 1980 (after roughly seven years in power) he held a plebescite (and there are varying views on the fairness of that vote) that adopted a new Constitution. That new Constitution stipulated that Pinochet would hold power as President for eight years, at which time the government would conduct a referendum on a further eight-year term. It also contained a provision that Presidents with more than six years service would be named as "Senators-for-life" and would sit in the upper house of Congress. It was the loss of the 1988 referendum that gave rise to Pinochet giving up power in 1990 after elections were held for a new President, and the "Senator-for-life" status that allowed him to (fairly or unfairly) escape prosecution. Both of these provisions were enacted in 1980.

Note that between 1980 and 1988 the USSR, (as it then was), Cuba, and East Germany (ditto) cooperated with the armed wing of the Chilean communist party to smuggle over 80 tonnes of weapons and explosives into Chile with the intent of fomenting a full blown revolution. As part of this plot the communist party attempted to assasinate Pinochet (unsuccessfully, obviously - although five of his bodyguards were killed in the attempt). There are dictators in the world who would have used this as an excuse to cancel the referendum on the extension of their term of office and hold on to power - it is to Pionochet's credit that he did not.

I was in Chile when Aylwin was elected in 1989/90 - while Chilenos were fully aware of the dark side of Pinochet's Presidency, many that I spoke to (granted; I was there on business - it is not surprising that my interlocutors were uniformly anti-communist) saw him as a true hero who had saved his country - at the very least preventing it from turning into a Pacific Cuba, or worse.

Milan - I should also mention that the 'democratically-elected Allende' also ignored an overwhelming vote of the lower house of Congress declaring that he had abused the Constitution (as it stood in 1973) and calling for him to be removed from power, and had been subject to a unanimous resolution of the Chilean Supreme Court that his government had removed the rule of law by selective enforcement and observation of SC decisions. None of that excuses anything Pinochet did, of course - but if your complaint is that he deposed a 'democratically elected' leader, you should be aware of how closely that leader observed democracy after the election...

What actually happened for those interested: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1998/03/98/pinochet/63832.stm

DCardno is right on the order of events. My point is only that Pinochet stepped down because 1) he knew he did not have the support of the majority of the people (though he was supported by the upper classes) and 2) He wanted to secure his position in the future and avoid future prosecution. I was seeking to refute the position that it was remarkable that Pinochet respected the will of the people after the referendum.

As for Allende, I don't idolize him like some on the left do but 1) He was elected democratically and 2) He didn't have blood on his hands. Nor did he steal some 17 million from his country.

And of course none of this has anything to do with why we should be focusing on the 'bright side' of Pinochet's admittedly brutal legacy.

Well, that's more action the comments have seen for a while. Behold the power of the one-line sneer!

Here's the thing. By the Post's estimation, we should consider more than the 2,000+ deaths Pinochet caused in writing his obituary.

Why? Because he was anti-Communist. Because he hated Castro. Because he instituted market reforms.

These are valid reasons for Chileans to be conflicted over Pinochet's "legacy," as some of them are. But editorialists in Don Mills are going to need something better than that to make me think of Pinochet as anything more complicated than a dictator who killed his own citizens.

It's not like the fall of Santiago would have been it, is it? Like we'd all be commies by now if Pinochet hadn't told Brezhnev to take a hike? Come on. I'm really happy that Chile's on a relatively good economic footing, but weighing that against thousands of dead is not a job for Canadians.

"...going to need something better than that to make me think of Pinochet as anything more complicated than a dictator who killed his own citizens."

Okay. So you classify him exactly as Mugabe, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao, Stalin, Peron, Franco, and perhaps Chavez. I can't tell you that you are wrong - after all, this is your classification, not mine - but I can say that this is, in my mind, a very crude way to differentiate them. We might as well group Merlot with Budweiser and Tequila since they are all alcoholic beverages.

I don't think the issue is whether "we would all be commies now" absent Pinochet, but whether Chileans would all be commies now (which they likely would be), and what their preference would be. It's not just that Pinochet instituted market reforms (although that was important) - it was that, even if late in the day, he voluntarily relinquished power following an adverse vote, without trying to rig the voting and without using some sort of pretext to remain in office - in so doing, he did a great deal to peacefully re-establish a legitimate and healthy democracy in Chile; there has yet to be another dictator who has managed the same for his country. I disagree that weighing these factors "is not a job for Canadians" - anyone who observes has the right to form an opinion (and possibly an obligation to do so), although I will grant that ours will not be as informed or heartfelt as that of a Chilean citizen who lived through it.

I still fail to see why you give this brute so much credit for stepping down after 17 years in power. Even after he stepped down, he made sure that no changes would be made to enable the prosecution of him and his thugs; and he continued to be the head of the army until 1997-98.

Allow me to point people to the real legacy of Pinochet. Abstractions and musings about his democratic impulses are interesting but let's make sure we know what this man did. (The timeline is also worth a read).

http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essays/pinochet.aspx

Milan - let's also ensure that we know what alternatives he faced:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/cuba/document.do?id=ar&yr=2005
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAMR250022002
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/Cuba996-01.htm#P355_13934
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/erc/democracy/1995_hrp_report/95hrp_report_ara/Peru.html
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/peru/index.do
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/08/28/peru6334.htm

I am not arguing for a whitewash - but one of Pinochet's legacies is a stable, free, and democratic nation on the west coast of South America. It may (and in your view, I suppose it does) pale in comparision to the violence that followed the coup, or the fact that he was in power for seventeen years, but it is none-the-less a fact. It is also an achievement unmatched (and generally undreamt of) by any other dictator in the world.

Absent Pinochet, I think the optimistic outlook for Chile was Cuba; the pessimistic outlook was Peru. I think he deserves recognition for steering between nearly five (and counting) decades of state repression and three (ditto) decades of guerilla warfare. Note the claim in the last link; 60,000 people died or disappeared in Peru, which has a little less than double Chile's population.

"I still fail to see why you give this brute so much credit for stepping down after 17 years in power."

Because he did it - irrespective of his reasons, motivations, or personal immunity, he did what no other dictator has done: manage a peaceful transition to a stable democracy. I think that rather distinguishes him from the others who weren't "...anything more complicated than a dictator who killed his own citizens."

I submitted a longer post, but it seems it was dropped in the bit-bucket; perhaps it will show up later.

Oops - so there it is now....

It's because of all those URLs you put in there - it runs afoul of Movable Type's hilariously terrible spam filter, and I then have to approve it. Embedded links work fine, FYI.

Aha!

I wondered, since I don't recall getting the "your first post has to be moderated" message for a long time - since the first time the system was implemented, I guess. That raises a question, of course - how does one embed a link? I would have prefered to do that, but it was beyond my skills...

dcardno,

you can embed a link by putting standard a href html tags around the word. this link explains it if your html is a little rusty, as is mine.

Thanks, kyliep. Now I just have to remember it when I need it...

Hmm. I was initially of a "Castro is a murdering dictator, Pinochet is a murdering dictator, and it matters not which side they played for". However, as threads go, this one was been particularly thought-provoking. I'm still one to condemn Pinochet for murdering over 2000 people (why not just imprison them, if it was so vital?), but I am starting to see what's meant by "mixed legacy".

Very interesting discussion.