![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldAbiola Lapite at Foreign Dispatches links to a story in Der Spiegel describing Allende's 1933 dissertation. Apparently, Allende strongly supported eugenics and enthusiastic stereotyped of Chilean minority groups (Jews were prone to usury, Arabs were thieving adventurers, Italians and Spanish were hotblooded). None of this speaks well of him, and simply observing that this sort of thinking was probably dominant worldwide shouldn't be taken as a vindication of Allende as a good man influenced by bad ideas. My profoundest issues with Allende stem from the circumstances of his election.
The 1973 coup was a very bad thing. The refusal of Pinochet to restore democracy to Chile for another 15 years shows how little concern the man actually had for civil liberty, and the willingness of the United States in the 1970s and 1980s to support coup-plotters and to recognize their government (produced by a coup staged on the 11th of September, no less) shows a cavalier disregard for civil and politics rights outside American frontiers. (Not that this is unique to the United States, but one always expects more from the self-proclaimed "leader of the Free World.")
For Allende to try to make Chile a socialist state with such a slim plurality of the popular vote, though, was criminally stupid. Establishing a state broadly organized along Marxist principles is bad enough; it's much worse to do so with the support of only a minority of the population in a badly divided country. Having a monopoly on the use of force within the country (i.e. controlling the military) helps, but it doesn't lend the cause any moral legitimacy. Allende might have supported eugenics back in the day, but by far his most important flaw as a politician was his willingness to set all the tinder lying about Chile alight. He might have been a patriot; yet, he inflicted such damage on his country.
Eduardo Frei, a centrist political leader of the Christian Democratic Party, had been been elected president in 1964. With the support of more conservative elements Frei won the presidency with 56 percent of the vote against Salvador Allende representing the Socialist Party and a coalition of other leftist parties. Frei had received the support of more conservative elements because of their fear of an Allende victory.
Frei's term as president from 1964 to 1970 involved some fairly radical programs, such as the nationalization of the Kennecott and Anaconda copper mines. There was also extensive land reform. Frei was trying to gain the allegiance of the lower income groups but in the process he alienated the upper income groups and conservative elements of the electorate.
In the 1970 election Frei did not run. Tomic represented the centrist Christian Democrats. But, as a result of their experience with Frei, the conservative elements did not support the Christian Democratic candidates. Instead Jorge Alessandri ran for the presidency. In the election Allende got 36 percent of the vote, the conservative Alessandri got 35 percent and the centrist Tomic got 28 percent of the vote. Allende had the plurality but just by a bare 1 percent.
Although a runoff election was clearly what was needed there was no provision for it under the constitution. The National Congress had to certify the winner of the presidential race and many urged Congress not to certify Allende but Congress held to the tradition of certifying the top voter-getter. It was generally understood that a candidate receiving much less than a majority did not have a mandate to carry out radical change in the country.
The 1973 coup was a very bad thing. The refusal of Pinochet to restore democracy to Chile for another 15 years shows how little concern the man actually had for civil liberty, and the willingness of the United States in the 1970s and 1980s to support coup-plotters and to recognize their government (produced by a coup staged on the 11th of September, no less) shows a cavalier disregard for civil and politics rights outside American frontiers. (Not that this is unique to the United States, but one always expects more from the self-proclaimed "leader of the Free World.")
For Allende to try to make Chile a socialist state with such a slim plurality of the popular vote, though, was criminally stupid. Establishing a state broadly organized along Marxist principles is bad enough; it's much worse to do so with the support of only a minority of the population in a badly divided country. Having a monopoly on the use of force within the country (i.e. controlling the military) helps, but it doesn't lend the cause any moral legitimacy. Allende might have supported eugenics back in the day, but by far his most important flaw as a politician was his willingness to set all the tinder lying about Chile alight. He might have been a patriot; yet, he inflicted such damage on his country.
