OK, explain to me the case for Pinochet...

[J. J.]

Some of the case is that he was arguably better than Allende and that Allende was acting extra-legally.  Parliament, before the coup, passed a resolution calling for his removal by the military.  I would not accuse Allende of having stage a "presidential coup," ala Louis Bonaparte, but he was drifting in that general direction.

Second, most, but not all, of the killing occurred within the first months of the coup, which was violent.  It was something less than the long term violence than you would see in Nazi Germany.  Arguably the human rights situation improved from 1973 post coup period under Pinochet.

Third, the economy did improve under Pinochet's reforms.  His free market policies survived him and have not been altered by Socialist governnments.

Fourth,  while thought at the time thought rigged, a referendum kept him in power in the 1980's.  In the second referendum, in 1988, a proposition to keep him received 42% of the vote.  It is quite possible that in 1980, he had enough popular support to rule.

Fifth, Pinochet served as a vital counter weight, not just against Communism, but against Argentine military aggression.  Because the West was willing to arm him, the counterweight was successful.

Sixth, Pinochet left office after the voters had spoken.

It's not a particularly good defence,  bit arguably Chileans were probably better under Pinochet than under allendi

[J. J.]

Parliament, before the coup, passed a resolution calling for his removal by the military.

Well, no, the opposition (a majority in Congress) claimed he was acting outside the Constitution, but they didn´t openly call for a coup. The Supreme Court also claimed he was breaking the law, for accepting the intrusion of homeless people in private properties. Still, if that was the case for the coup, I would say every Latin American president should be removed. In countries with housing problems, most presidents know it´s impossible to send the police everywhere to throw this people out. Of course, you could say that the difference is that Allende (or some in his party, actually) was actively promoting this intrusions...

I am noting that the situation under Allende was heading the direction of extra-constitutional power and that the majority of representatives, elected in free elections, saw this as a danger.  As I said, Allende was not at the Louis Napoleon point, but he was heading in that direction.  They did, according Wiki, call for military intervention
[

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was not the case in Nazi Germany, nor with his contemporaries, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, and his neighbor to the east, Argentina, nor in current dictatorships such as Zimbagwe or North Korea. 

I'm suggesting the situation, long term, did improve, not that the country became free under Pinochet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was rigged, no doubt about that. The opposition barely had access to the media. And they were not´t allowed to control the vote counting. Anyway, I admit his 43% of 1989 was very impressive.

[/quote]

My point is that Pinochet might have actually won a free election at that point.

I'm not arguing that Pinochet was a good man, but I am arguing that he was far from the worst bad man out there and that his government did not lend itself to the same level of abuses that existed in other contemporary dictatorships of both the right and the left.

[J. J.]

No, Chile was not better off under Pinochet.

Oh, and it's pretty funny that someone who loves Pinochet claims to be a moderate.

BRTD, I'm afraid you do not understand subtlety between "loving" Pinochet and saying that he was not as terrible a dictator as some of his contemporaries.  Further, you ignore the illegalities of the Allende regime prior to the coup.  Now Allende was not a dictator, but he was heading down that road.  Had he not been, it's unlikely that the coup would have been successful.

[J. J.]

Then why did Chile have an almost perfect Freedom House score? Allende probably would've lost the next election in a year, and then he would've been gone. Instead they got Pinochet for 17 years. Clearly Pinochet was wrong then. I consider anyone who defends any right wing dictator to be a right wing extremist, and anyone who defends any left wing dictator to be a left wing extremist. Period.

You've just defined yourself as a left wing extremist.

It appears that a majority wanted Pinochet for much of those 17 years.  He regarded as so "bad" that 42% say, "Hey stay on another decade," even though I probably would have voted no.

Again the defense isn't that Pinochet good, or Allenda is evil.  It is that Pinochet wasn't as bad as dictators before, contemporary, or since.

So tell me, do you think Pinochet was worse than Pol Pot, the neighboring Junta in Argentina at the time, Idi Amin, or Saddam Hussein?

[J. J.]

I never said I wasn't a left wing extremist.

You're a complete fool if you think Pinochet ever had majority support and that referendum in the 80s wasn't totally rigged.

Getting 42% effectively in favor keeping him on after 16 years is a feat.  FDR got 53% of the popular vote, in the middle of WW II at 12 years.  While there was no doubt vote rigging 80's referendum, but it's very possible that he had majority support then.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would disagree with you on two counts.  First, the "Dirty War" escalated under that Junta.  Suppression, after the bloody days of 1973 decreased in Chile (though it did not end).  Second, in at least two cases, Argentina tried foreign expansion; Chile, under Pinochet, did not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please tell me the last time Castro willingly submitted himself to free elections and voluntarily gave up power when he lost?

Let's look at this way.  Was Pinochet the worst dictator of all time?  No.  The worse dictator of his contemporaries?  No.  The worst dictator in the western hemisphere?  No.  In the Western hemisphere south of the Equator?  No.  Did his regime get progressively less repressive?  Yes.  Did he accomplish some good for the region (by serving as a check on Argentina and on Communism)?  Yes.  Did he accomplish some good for Chile?  Yes, to the extent that Socialist governments there follow his economic policies, at least.  Did he hold himself above the law and stay in office after losing?  No, though his pullout was in stages.

On the whole, I'd say he was a minus for Chile, but there were pluses to Pinochet regime, that are absent in other dictatorships. 

[J. J.]

I am noting that the situation under Allende was heading the direction of extra-constitutional power

Present continuous is a difficult tense. "Was heading" implies the idea of a clear and predictable direction. I´m not so sure about that, as I´m not sure of the benefits of "preventive action".

Well, first of all, I'm not stating that Allende was at the point where he was a "presidential dictator."  Nor am I saying that the coup with 17 year junta was the best solution.

I am saying that there were extra-constitutional actions that raised concerns of Allende's former parliamentary allies, who called for military action (though they did not call for 17 year junta).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We can´t know that actually. That´s the problem with dictators: they might be popular, but we can´t know that.
[/quote]

It surprisingly seems likely.  No popular uprising and a share of the vote that you referred to as "impressive" eight years later.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, actually most of the killings of the Argentine Junta were commited in 1976-77. The 1980-83 period was much more "peaceful" in that regard. And Pinochet also tried foreing expansion; it´s now known that he planned to cross the Andes after Argentina was defeated in the Falkland´s, but was warned no to do it by his northern allies.

[/quote]

According to Wiki the "dirty war" was continuous during the Junta (and arguably had begun under the Eva Peron regime).  In Chile, the major killing ended soon after the coup.  Pinochet was not engaged in anything like the "dirty war" in 1980, for example.  If you were a left winger, you had  a better chance of safety in Chile than Argentina.

My point is, Pinochet didn't try foreign expansion.  Argentina did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not claiming Pinochet is a great guy who should be on a stamp (or in a sig), but I am saying that he did make some improvements, did not invade his neighbors, left voluntarily (though slowly) and moderated (though far from completely) his suppression.  He could have done A LOT more damage.

[J. J.]

Well, we won´t agree on the other issues, but about Pinochet vs the Argentine Junta: Argentina had some 4 times the Chilean population, while it had 3 times its number of missing (desaparecidos). The CONADEP has listed 9.000 missing in Argentina (the 30.000 number has no base); in Chile there were 3.000. Actually, the odds of being tortured and killed by the government were higher in Chile than in Argentina. There are no official numbers of exiled (that I´m aware of), but I think it´s also higher in proportion in Chile (most of the current Concertación leaders left the country in the 70´s, including Presidents Bachelet and Lagos).

Pinochet also ruled for a longer than the Junta in Argentina (17 vs. 6 years).  Most, though not all, of the killing and torture occurred in the aftermath of the 1973 coup.  I can think of three dictators that moderated their regime somewhat after being in power long, Pinochet, Franco, and Napoleon III.  As can be seen today, in Zimbabwe, or in Iraq previously, that usually isn't the case.

I'm not making the case that Pinochet was good, only that he was less bad.  I was asked to make the case for Pinochet, and I think that is it.