Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Evaluating Pinochet's Chile
I find myself torn as I write about Pinochet, largely because historians and Chileans also do not know what to make of him. While thousands of Allende supporters were tortured, murdered, and some merely "disappeared" when Pinochet took power, Chile's economy did eventually stabilize, and the country most of the Cold War conflicts that seriously afflicted countries like Nicaragua and El Salvador. How do we evaluate a leader who thought so little of human rights, but did well for the economy? How do you think the US perspective of Pinochet might have changed over the years as we distance ourselves from the Nixon administration?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The thing with Pinochet is that he didn't have anyone to answer to. With democracies or any other government with multiple layers of government, one always has to answer to another. but when its a military dictator ship, the leader can do anything without question. of course the reason why other governments have checks and balances within their systems is to protect the people which is what Pinochet obviously ignored. I think that as time went on the US denounced what was happening in Chile but i also believe that we aided the regime with giving them supplies.
ReplyDeleteI understand that it was important for Chile to get back on its feet. With Allende, there was a lot of economic and social turmoil that was only destined to get worse. However I do believe that Pinochet's governmental takeover was a bit too harsh. Was it really necessary to imprison 12,000 Chileans from just September to November 1973? And was it really necessary to go ahead and murder over 5000 Chileans just because they were "perceived" as an enemies? I think not. His brutality was selfish. I truly believe Pinochet could still have achieved economic stability without taking away so many human rights.
ReplyDeleteEverything I have heard about Pinochet sounds really bad, like he was a major tyrant who suppressed a whole country. It is hard to appreciate what he did for Chile's economy if so many people suffered from the inhuman conditions in the dictatorship. But there we have to face the fact that there were many historical personalities that were terrible, and yet accomplished great things. But I don't think that a dictatorship is the right way to stabilize a country's economy, and it sure wasn't the only way for Chile.
ReplyDeletePinochet did terrible things to the Chilean people, but good things for the economy. Other leaders had done bad things for the people, and bad things for the economy. Does this make Pinochet a good leader? Well, that's debatable. While we cannot say that what he did was right, it certainly had a good result for the country. But what's the point of making a good economy for a public in turmoil?
ReplyDeleteLike others have said, most of what I read on Pinochet sounded really bad. The things he did, he did basically for the country rather than the people in the country. But to make his country good, he sacrificed the people in it, he did horrific things to them. I personally think that these actions do not make a good leader. You should not better the country while others may be at the butt end of the deal. It is unethical and I personally think that he is a terrible leader for it.
ReplyDeletePinochet is obviously not a great leader. Who cares if the economy is good when the people are starving and innocent people are being killed. A leader is suppose to look out for his people, regardless of his political or military views. So long as the leader is doing right by his people, there could be a valid argument that he/she is a good leader. For Pinochet, no argument could be made that he was a good leader.
ReplyDeleteI am also not sure of what to make of Pinochet. It seems like there is never a leader who both stabilizes the country AND is a believer of human rights. I like Dave's statement of Pinochet's actions being unethical. One cannot be a "good" leader if they create suffering. There needs to be a balance in order for one to be perceived as a good leader of a country.
ReplyDeleteA stronger economy is not a justification for a tyrannical leader. Pinochet is not a good leader no matter what criteria he is evaluated on. Leaders are supposed to have the people and their wellbeing at the forefront of all plans that go into action. A good leader is never someone who lets the people go by the wayside for the purpose of fixing an economy. If the people are not able to enjoy the new economy, what is the use in it being fixed?
ReplyDeleteWell, sometimes i think communism does not make sense because the other day my math teacher told a story that if a math teacher decide to give average grades to the entire class, bad students won't study and good students gets pissed and they won't study as hard the next time. May be be in a position of Pinochet has to make a choice, between people and economy of the country. According to the article we read, despite Pinochet improved economy, yet the GDP is not any better. Basically, rich get richer and poor remain as suffered.
ReplyDelete