Pinochet's coup d'état

This is said neither to justify Pinochet’s coup, nor the brutal methods he used. The 1991 Rettig Commission found that at least 3,000 people were killed (or “disappeared”) between 1973 and 1990. By Latin American standards, some say that this is restrained.

Bill James , a letter writer to The Australian on December 13, 2006, wrote that that about five to six times as many have been executed by Fidel Castro, and about 30,000 have drowned in attempting to escape Cuba. He asked whether similar condemnations would be made of Castro when he too leaves this world.

The next day Marcus Hicks, while not making apologies for the “pretty awful” things Castro had done, replied saying that putting Castro in the same league as Pinochet was “just plain wrong-headed”. The difference between Pinochet’s coup, and those in other Latin American countries was not so much in the violence and bloodshed, but in the economy. Coups seem normally to result in making countries economically worse off - Pinochet transformed Chile into one of most successful economies in that region.

Pinochet was arrested in London on a Spanish warrant. There is a tendency now for some countries to claim jurisdiction over what was once clearly the preserve of the courts of the relevant country. Lawyers including judges are divided over the wisdom and legality of this; in any event Pinochet was released on the grounds of ill health.

Even over the question of his funeral, Chile remained divided over Pinochet. Supporters point to the recovery and success of the economy under his government, and that he handed back power when he lost a plebiscite. Opponents criticise the coup and the violence of the repression.

Most commentators in the Western media seem to come down against Pinochet; an exception was James Whelan in The Australian on December 15, 2006. In his piece, “Far from being an evil dictator, Pinochet rescued Chile”, Whelan argues that contrary to conventional wisdom, Pinochet averted civil war and saved millions from the destruction of socialism.

The point for constitutionalists is that the economic, political and constitutional crisis in 1973 was extremely serious. Relations between the executive on the one hand, and the legislature and the courts on the other had broken completely. There was little chance of reconciliation. The economy had almost collapsed.

The Australian situation in 1975 pales in comparison. And as Sir David Smith points out, it was a political and not a constitutional crisis, even if the media portray it as such. In fact the Australian Constitution provided a remarkably speedy and peaceful resolution to the political crisis created by two obstinate politicians. That resolution was by the people, not by the gun. There were no deaths, no one “disappeared”, no torture, no arrests, no bloodshed and no violence.

The lesson from the Chilean experience is surely that a constitutional system which provides no solution in such circumstances is seriously flawed. One which has a proven ability to resolve such crises, and which has lasted for over a century and a half is extremely rare. It is unknown in many parts of the world. As such it should be honoured and treasured.

Those who want Australians to abandon their constitutional system, however much they may say the change is “minimal”, have a high duty to explain how it would work. To say they have no model at all is a gross abdication of responsibility that has already drawn ridicule in a not unsympathetic media.