Regressive

                                                                                                      Source: Publimetro

The Caupolican theatre in Santiago is symbolic. It was the site of antigovernment rallies during the Pinochet dictatorship. It was were President Frei Montalva rejected the institutionalization of the regime following the fraudulent constitutional plebiscite of 1980.

And on Sunday it was the site of a tribute to Augusto Pinochet. The event attracted about 1000 die hard Pinochetistas, including former members of his government and some family members.

Questions:

1) Is it worth banning such events? Would it not be better to let these people fester in their own memories of torture and general mayhem?

2) This is the second such tribute in less than a year. Why is it that Pinochet supporters suddenly feel emboldened to hold such public displays of affection for the dictator? Is there something this government is doing, or not doing, that is contributing to this renewed sense of pride?

3) Is the presence of 1000 people, most of whom are the same mix of former government members and older, middle class women who took to the streets when Pinochet died, a signal of a renewed Pinochetismo, or the last gasp of a dying breed?

4) Why did the police arrest the anti-Pinochet demonstrators but escort the Pinochet supporters out a back door and then supply buses to transport them away from the theatre?

5) Why is no one pressuring the owners of the theatre? In North America, it seems to me, when these types of events occur or threaten to occur, the first recourse is to pressure the venue.

6) Is reconciliation possible? Is it even desirable? Yesterday, government spokesman Andrés Chadwick, a cousin of the president, a member of the UDI, and, together with fellow ministers Lavin, Longueira and Dittborn, one of the 'stars' of an infamous picture with Pinochet, declared he regretted his support for Pinochet in light of what he now knows of the human rights abuses committed under the regime. Perhaps events such as the Pinochet tribute provide valuable learning opportunities, no matter how painful the process may be.

Discuss.

Hollande-Latin America Line

What Francois Hollande's victory means for social democracy in Latin America, and vice versa. A comment by yours truly and Francisco Javier Díaz.

WSJ on Chile: Not Bullish, but it sounds similiar

The Wall Street Journal published a column this week by someone by the name of Mary Anastasia O'Grady. They could have splurged on plane fare, because clearly she doesn't know much about Chile. That has not stopped El Mercurio from hanging on to every misinformed, distorted word, or from Camila Vallejo from falling into the trap and responding with equally vigorous ideology.

According to Ms. O'Grady, the social movements that have taken to the streets over the last year demand “free university education, nationalization of the copper industry, and the end of the liberal economic model”. Well, yes, there are some who stick to those slogans, but they are a minority, even amongst the demonstrators. For the most part, students want to pay reasonable fees with low interest on student loans, and receive a quality education that will serve them in the workplace. The copper industry is already partially nationalized – something which was not only not rescinded by the military regime, but was used, and continues to be used, to fund military spending and just about everything else. This enables Chile to maintain ridiculously low tax rates. And nobody really expects a radical shift from the neoliberal model, although people do expect some degree of protection from its more negative effects.

O’Grady berates President Piñera for not defending liberty – if what is meant by liberty is low taxes. She is aghast that the flat corporate tax was raised to 20%. In the US the average corporate tax rate is in the mid 30. In all, the total tax take as a percentage of GDP in Chile is about 18%, roughly half of what it is in neoliberal Britain.

But the Wall Street Journal makes it sound like the heyday of neoliberalism is over in Chile, thanks to populist demands and a weak president. I suppose they yearn for the days of the Concertación, when higher education expanded exponentially (although with minimal regulation, leading to the problems of quality control we see today), when industries like salmon helped to diversify the economy (although lack of environmental oversight almost led to its collapse), and when mining was opened up to the private sector (again, with the lack of regulation that led to the miners’ saga in 2010).

The WSJ should just come out with it and declare itself in favour of a Concertación government for 2013.

Sorry Ricky

You may recall that a couple of months ago America's Quarterly published a review I wrote of Ricardo Lagos' new book, Southern Tiger. You can reread it here.

Now the Economist has put out its own review, and it is probably even harsher than mine. In both cases, we find that the book, as a memoir, is very light on details. It is not really a memoir, but a kind of review of recent Chilean history and the very important role that Lagos played in it.

All in all it seems like a missed opportunity. What a shame.

More on The Economist's view of the Piñera government

I don't know why Chileans care so much about what the rest of the world thinks about them, but somehow when The Economist says what everyone else in Chile is thinking, it's a big deal.

So here's my latest column on what The Economist says.

Foreign Affairs interviews Christopher Sabatini

Here is Chris Sabatini's incisive criticism of American policy in Latin America.

The Economist slams Chile, again

The Chilean model is, presumably, a model because a) other countries have decided to model themselves after it (some countries, like Russia, have attempted to copy Chile's private pension system, for example) and b) because international business and policy elites have decided that there was something in the Chilean case to be emulated.


The Economist -- a fairly good barometer of these elites -- has for some time been wary of where the Chilean model was going, and this week devotes a long essay to the current state of things. And it ain't pretty.


There are lots of interesting data in the piece, but I suspect that what it comes down to is Carlos Peña's final quote -- it's a crisis of expectations. 


I have long felt that the Chilean model was built on a kind of Chilean Dream, analogous to the American Dream, where the citizen-consumer accepted a kind of Faustian pact of neoliberalism in exchange for improving living standards. When Peña speaks of a crisis of expectations, he is referring to how Chileans perceive those standards of living. It is no longer enough to have a fridge or a flat screen TV, if you feel the cable company is ripping you off. It is not enough to get a university degree if your family goes into debt for years to fund a degree which will not offer much in terms of employment.


That's the current model, and The Economist doesn't seem so eager to have others emulate it.