11th September, 1973

On the 11th September 1973 there was a military coup against the elected government of President Salvador Allende. This resulted in an armed assault on the Presidential offices (the second in 3 months) during which it was bombed and President Allende died. This presaged months of terror and disappearances where anyone associated with the left wing parties, or suspected of left wing sympathies were routinely arrested, imprisoned, interrogated (which frequently meant tortured) and in some cases killed, usually with the bodies disposed of so that their families would never see them again, hence the "desaparecidos".

Military rule would continue until 1989 with occasional periods of repression within this time, demonstrating that the ruling powers had not forgotten how they had attained power and were prepared to use the same means again.

Museo de la Memoria
y los Derechos Humanos

The 30 articles of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights are
displayed outside the museum in
copper. It's a struggle to think
of any that weren't abused by
the military junta

As part of the new constitution Pinochet put into place in 1980 (ratified by plebiscite, but one where there was no voter registration so not exactly free and fair), he would be President for an 8 year term after which there would need to be a further plebiscite in 1988 to choose whether to extend the Pinochet's rule for another 8 years, or instead to return to democracy and have the first free Presidential elections since 1970. The question was simply "Augusto Pinochet - Yes , No". In the Museo de la Memoria y los Derechos Humanos they had some of the advertising material from the two campaigns. It was interesting to see that the "positive" choice (i.e. more Pinochet) used a language of fear and some pretty soviet style motivation, while the "No" vote was all about hope and potential. The result was that, in an election where nearly 90% of those eligible (i.e. including those not registered to vote) cast a ballot, 55.98% voted "No". This initially surprised me, why would people vote for 8 more years of not having a choice, rather than being able to vote again in 5[1]? Why would you vote to keep someone in power who has used terror and violence to gain and stay in power? But nearly half the population did. Whether it was the "Yes" campaign's message of fear of change, because people genuinely believed the sacrifice of political rights was worth the (relative) economic stability / prosperity (a bit like Singapore) or because people had something to lose / fear from a return to democracy and the inevitable light that would be shed on the actions of the junta. I don't know and think myself fortunate that I've never been in a situation where I've had to make that kind of choice.

The museum in town was well put together, informative, well documented and showed the scale of the atrocities with a wall showing a photo of every person identified in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as having disappeared.

The second place I went to was very different. A road in an architecturally appealing area, and a nondescript door. Inside was a townhouse with bare walls. This was Londres 38, a detention and interrogation centre used by the junta in the early stages of the regime when the crack down was at its most brutal. Verbatim quotes from some of those incarcerated shown on the walls and a short looping film where some of the stories from the place were graphically brought to life. Some of these were recounted by the loved ones they had left behind, as the subject of the films would never be seen again. Two things struck me. One was the everyday nature of it all - people would go through the front door everyday to "come to work", while others would enter (and leave) through the garage doors, potentially never to be seen again. The other was the recency of all of this, which is why you still see protests outside the main Parliament building and elsewhere by people who still don't have the answers to the questions they have, and still feel that the people who worked in places like Londres 38 have not had to give account, let alone answer for, what they did. Outside the building, in the cobblestoned road are plaques (similar to Berlin's stolpersteins) commemorating some of those who didn't survive their visit to the building, men and women, some in their teens, likely to have been guilty of no crime other than having different political beliefs.

All of this was frankly quite depressing and if anything demonstrated the fragility of democracy. I'm glad Chile has managed to get it back and hope that it (and the rest of the world) can learn from its experiences.

Notes
1. I agree with the sentiment behind "Politicians are like diapers, they should be changed frequently and for the same reason", whether Mark Twain said it first or it came from a Robin Williams film. If you look at British politicians, after about 8 years in power, their attitude seems to change from recognising that they are the elected servant of the British people, to the person that knows best what the British people need (even if the people disagree).