As governments in Iran, Russia, and China brutally crack down on dissent, overcoming authoritarianism seems like an increasingly insurmountable task for the masses.
Once upon a time, Augusto Pinochet appeared to have a similarly unbreakable grip on Chilean society. With the support of the Chilean military and the United States government, Pinochet’s regime imprisoned, tortured, or killed over 40,000 Chileans to suppress dissent and eliminate the political opposition. Yet fifty years later, as Chile flourishes as one of the world’s strongest democracies, it remains a stark example of how the seemingly poor and powerless masses can overthrow a dictator.
In 1970, Chile was a young democracy struggling under rampant poverty and inequality. The living conditions in Chile drove the electorate to its extremes, fueling the far-right and the far-left.
The Chilean working class, predominantly made up of miners in Chile’s integral copper industry, united to support Salvador Allende. Allende represented the Popular Unity party, a coalition of socialists, communists, and radicals. With 36.3% of the vote, Allende squeaked through with a plurality of the vote.
The United States, terrified of the spread of communism near its borders, apprehensively waited for Allende’s next moves.
Allende expropriated all US-owned copper companies without compensation, reclaiming a large portion of the Chilean economy. He redistributed privately owned mining and manufacturing estates to peasant cooperatives. He also increased wages and froze prices.
While Allende’s reforms improved the treatment and living conditions of many workers, not all Chileans approved. Rising wages led to an increase in consumer demand. When the price of copper dropped, Chile struggled to finance the imports needed to meet demand.
The situation worsened as the US retaliated against Allende’s reforms. They ended aid to the Chilean government and pressured the World Bank to stop granting loans to the country.
The Chilean economy floundered as inflation skyrocketed. Protests, strikes, and demonstrations rocked the country. But it wasn’t just Allende’s policies that were dividing Chile.
Little did they know, America was laying the groundwork for its “chaos formula” — the creation of a coup climate in Chile.
President Nixon first directed the CIA to destabilize the Chilean economy in the run-up to Allende’s election.
“Make the economy scream,” he told the CIA. Nixon wanted to prevent Allende from assuming office in the first place. When Allende eked out a victory, the CIA began financing strikes in major sectors of the Chilean economy. One strike of 250,000 truck drivers led to a massive food shortage across the country.
“As early as December 1971, women took to the streets in what became known as ‘the march of the empty saucepans’ because of the problems they had getting hold of basic goods,” Adolfo Ibanez, a historian, and columnist for El Mercurio, told BBC.
On September 11, 1973, Chile reached its breaking point. Far-right military officers, led by army commander-in-chief Augusto Pinochet, orchestrated a coup.
Warplanes bombed radio stations and cut off Allende’s communications. The officers demanded that Allende surrender and resign. When Allende refused, the Chilean air force bombed the presidential palace for hours. By the end of the day, Allende was found dead from a self-inflicted bullet to the head.
Pinochet assumed control of the country. During his seventeen-year reign, Pinochet reorganized Chile in his own image. He dissolved Congress and suspended constitutional rights. He instituted a new constitution that favored conservative interests, banned extreme left parties, and gave himself amnesty in case of prosecution.
Pinochet arrested approximately 130,000 people in his first three years in office. The National Directorate of Intelligence, nicknamed “Pinochet’s Gestapo,” detained leftists, political opponents, and critics and sent them to concentration camps. Thousands were tortured, raped, and murdered.
Despite Pinochet’s human rights abuses, the leader still enjoyed considerable support among the Chilean population — enough to relatively stabilize his regime.
“I don’t believe the dictatorship was that bad,” a Chilean woman recalled to BBC in 2013. “It was a safer time on the streets for normal people. Now you go to the outskirts of Santiago and there are lots of drugs. There weren’t back then.”
That same year, right-wing congressman Ivan Moreira told Chilean state television that Pinochet “saved me from living under a regime, a Marxist dictatorship. Pinochet saved the lives of an entire generation.”
A key source of Pinochet’s support was the rapid success of the Chilean economy. Pinochet implemented major neoliberal and hyper-capitalist reforms. He denationalized Chile’s mining industry, deregulated the markets, and privatized multiple industries. Inflation and poverty fell. From 1976 to 1979, Chile experienced such an economic boom that Milton Friedman referred to as the “Chilean miracle.”
The United States economically and politically supported Pinochet’s regime. The US reignited aid to Chile and reinvested in its industries. The US government even gave $3 million dollars to Pinochet personally in 1976.
“We want to help, not undermine you,” US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told Pinochet. “You did a great service to the West in overthrowing Allende.”
When critics of Pinochet’s regime in the United Nations condemned his human rights violations, Pinochet sought to legitimize his regime. In a 1978 national plebiscite, a direct vote of approval by the electorate. Pinochet allowed limited oppositional organizing in the 13 days between the announcement of the plebiscite and the day of the vote. While this encouraged some human rights leaders, a prominent leader of the opposition warned that “a great fraud” was underway.
Pinochet won with 75% of the vote. Pinochet used a tactic commonly emulated by autocrats like Vladimir Putin. Leaders know that there will always be some level of disapproval in a legitimate government, even the most popular ones. Thus, they allow a limited amount of oppositional activity to exist. Pinochet decreased political repression and secret police activity.
Through vote-rigging or lopsided polls, they delegitimize the opposition’s power. Pinochet, like many of his autocratic peers, used the results of the plebiscite to justify his reign.
Yet, just as the Chilean economy planted the seeds of Pinochet’s rise, it also held the key to his demise.
In 1982, Chile fell into a devastating debt crisis. Its foreign loans were depleted and international economic trends turned against them. Many of Pinochet’s free market reforms that catapulted the Chilean economy to success in the 1970s, from creating an artificially high exchange rate to attempting to lower wage rates, exacerbated the crisis.
Unemployment rose to 24% as GDP fell by 14%. Chile’s foreign debt was nearly $20 billion US dollars — one of the highest debts per capita in the world.
The economic crisis in the country ignited a fire of political dissent in Chile.
Trade unions, led by the Confederation of Copper Workers (CTC), began organizing throughout Chile. On May 11, 1983, the CTC called for the first major protest. In what became known as the “National Day of Protest,” the citizens of Santiago quieted their activities. At 8pm, they unleashed a cacophony of noise, banging on pots and honking horns.
Although the protesters were peaceful, Pinochet’s forces arrested 600 and killed several others. But Chileans weren’t deterred.
“We tried to broaden it to the whole country, to protest not just the economic hardship, but human rights abuses, the whole system,” said union leader Rodolfo Seguel. “Someone had to dare to tell the dictator that he was a dictator, that it was a dictatorship, that we needed a change.”
Opposition political parties formed a “Democratic Alliance” to oppose the dictatorship. Students joined the dissenters. As time passed, the crowds grew. Flying in the face of imprisonment, journalists announced the protests through newspapers, magazines, and radio.
Chileans held monthly scheduled protests against the regime. In the interim, they held “lightning protests”, where small groups of people chanted slogans and dropped pamphlets off of tall buildings before the police arrived. The spontaneity of the protests made them difficult to counter. The small sizes of the groups made them hard to catch.
In the months following the 1983 National Day of Protest, Pinochet’s grip on power seemed to be weakening. His administration entered talks with opposition leaders on electing a Congress. He increased the freedom of the press. He vowed to reduce unemployment. He even gave permission for two mass demonstrations.
But by 1984, this window of progress was closing. Despite the opposition parties attracting hundreds of thousands of citizens to their demonstrations, their leadership was fractured. Pinochet was able to consolidate enough political power to stay afloat.
Pinochet wavered on the creation of an elected Congress as talks stalled with opposition leaders. He threatened to jail the organizers of the protests, many of whom were his political opponents.
Pinochet’s forces went on a rampage, riding through the streets with machine guns and tanks. Riot police, armed with dogs, clubs, and tear gas, patrolled the cities. Determined to instill fear, they shot down streets at random. Eight people died.
However, Pinochet’s machinations began to delegitimize his regime with one of the last power players in town: the Catholic Church.
In one episode of Pinochet’s repressive violence against protesters, a priest was shot in his parish house as he read the Bible.
The Church had played an active role in the protests for years. They had shepherded many poor Chileans to the cause. As the Vatican condemned the incident in horror, the Chilean Catholic Church requested an investigation into police involvement in the shooting.
Unsettled by the disarray of opposition, the archbishop of Santiago hosted meetings between opposition and pro-regime political parties. Over time, the group signed the National Accord for the Transition to Full Democracy. While Pinochet rejected the agreement, the dictator was losing friends fast.
Pinochet’s most powerful ally, the United States, was losing faith.
“An asset like Pinochet becomes a liability when he is no longer seen as capable of stopping the forces of the left and creating a stable economic climate,” said Peter Kornbluh, author of The Pinochet File.
In 1986, Ronald Reagan considered offering Pinochet asylum in exchange for stepping down peacefully. The administration hoped that it would prevent a civil war.
“Absolutely not,” said Reagan’s Secretary of State, George Schultz, “Pinochet [has] too much blood on his hands.”
That July, Pinochet’s soldiers had set two live demonstrators on fire. By the fall, the US withdrew its support for the dictatorship.
By 1987, Pinochet needed to re-legitimize his regime. The increasingly organized masses were against him, calling for several national strikes. International calls for democracy were growing. Pope John Paul II had just visited Chile in the name of human rights and democracy.
Despite these setbacks, Pinochet still believed he could hold onto his power. Pinochet announced that a national referendum would be held the following year. This plebiscite would ask the electorate whether they approved of Pinochet remaining president.
The Chilean people had found the opening they were looking for. While the Pinochet administration was isolated, devoid of its strongest allies, the masses were united in a singular cause. Bolstered by the support of students, poor Chileans, and the Catholic Church, 16 opposition parties created The Coalition of Parties for NO.
Since the state controlled all TV channels, the coalition was only given thirty minutes a day to advertise. The opposition had to use the time wisely.
The campaign used a rainbow arching over a white background as their symbol. They emphasized their hopes for Chile’s future. They painted a society of peace and happiness. The coalition began using the symbol at their marches, demonstrating up until the very day of the vote.
On October 5th, 1988, Chileans lined the streets and the sidewalks as they waited for the polling places to open. Despite soldiers staying on standby, Election Day was peaceful.
The opposition won with nearly 55% of the vote. After some reluctant equivocation, Pinochet stepped down. In 1990, Pinochet was replaced by the first democratically elected President in Chile in seventeen years.
The following decade, Pinochet was indicted by Spanish judges for human rights violations committed against Spanish citizens residing in Chile. Although he died before justice could be brought against him, his arrest set a historic precedent for dictators around the world.
“It was the first time a former head of state had been arrested based on the principle of universal jurisdiction,” Amnesty International writes. The moment symbolized that the masses bring justice against their oppressors, no matter how insurmountable the odds may seem.
Despite the many liberal reforms in the decades since Pinochet’s regime, such as a restoration of civil rights, Chile still struggles with poverty and inequality. The pension system and the organized workers’ movement have suffered in recent years as large corporations have grown. While greater numbers of Chileans attend college, the cost of living has ballooned.
Price-hikes in public transportation set off a firestorm of violent protests against the right-wing President Sebastían Pinera in 2019.
“It’s not thirty pesos,” one viral poster read. “It’s thirty years.”
The 2019 demonstrations exposed the depths to which the ghosts of Pinochet’s regime remain in the country.
Chile still follows Pinochet’s 1980 constitution. The constitution is broadly criticized for electorally favoring conservative political and business interests.
“When elites from the authoritarian past retain political and economic influence, public policy and decision-making systematically favor elites over the vast majority of the population,” writes political scientist Michael Albertus. “This means social safety nets are shoddy, inequality is rife and government power is restricted.”
Fed up with the rising costs of living, Chileans erected barricades and set subway stations ablaze. Pinera declared a state of emergency as the military joined the police to quell the demonstrations on the streets.
Yet, there is one key difference between thirty years ago and today. This year, Chileans were able to peacefully and democratically elect leftist parties and independents into power. They won in a sweep.
This year, Chile’s new President proposed a new constitution for the country. His proposal included a wider social safety net, presidential term limits, and the promotion of direct democracy initiatives that empower the public. The proposal also included a broad array of controversial leftist reforms.
A Washington Post article on the referendum read, “Many who voted ‘No’ still want a new constitution – just not this one.”
While the country is still determining its economic future, Chileans are slowly shedding the remnants of Pinochet’s regime. The days of dictatorship are fading away.
According to Freedom House, Chile is one of the strongest democracies in the world today. It scores almost perfectly in freedoms for political rights and civil liberties, giving it an overall Freedom in the World score of 94. Its democracy is stronger than that of the United States, which scored an 83.
***
Pro-democracy forces around the world can glean a lot from Chile’s journey.
The idealists can see how nonviolent mass civic movements can topple even the most brutal of dictators who have even the most powerful of friends. With patience and perseverance, change can happen. The cooperation of opposition movements, students, and figures like the Catholic Church can unite the masses behind a common cause.
But Chile also offers an unsettling lesson for others. The influence of the economy on the rise and fall of Chile’s democracy is undeniable. To this day, some Chileans revere Pinochet for his economic reforms.
To some, the concept of human rights boils down to the right to eat, not to vote. Therefore, the appeal of dictators who promise a brighter vision of life remains evergreen.
As the world tumbles into winter, dictatorships have unique leverage in a globalized economy. Russia, with its control over Europe’s energy supply, holds particular influence. While people tend to support democracy in theory, economic woes can push electorates to bombastic leaders with appealing promises.
Pro-democracy movements must prepare their coalitions for these hardships now. They must emphasize the importance of liberal ideals while providing an economic message that offers a solution to people’s pain.