By Mariana Aylwin *

President Gabriel Boric began his term by evoking President Salvador Allende. The young people of his generation, who rule Chile today, were born into political life proposing radical changes to end neoliberalism.

Inspired by a revolutionary epic reminiscences from the seventies, reflected the discomfort of the modernization process, questioning the policies promoted by governments since the return to democracy. They despised the transition agreements and looked with sympathy (when they did not join) on the social coup of 2019 and the acceptance of violence. They did not bear the trauma of the democratic collapse, because They were born in a democracy. His re-founding ideals and populist proposals found an echo in the parties that made a successful transition towards democracy, which, ignoring their own achievements, joined reviews drespect for the model they promoted. In this way, they had a small counterweight for coming to power in a few years, in the context of increasing polarization.

The spirit of refoundation

In the year and a half of Borić’s administration, the reformist spirit reached its maximum expression in the Constitutional Convention, whose draft of the new Constitution was rejected 62% of Chileans in a plebiscite in September 2022. Since then, the government has suffered several defeats. Eight months later, during the election of the Constitutional Council to continue the constitutional process, Lawthis time led by her most extreme sector, she got enough councilors to propose a new text without the need for additional support.

Issues of insecurity, terrorism in Araucanía, cases of corruption and a stagnant economy, among other factors, contributed to the commemoration agenda. 50 years since the military coup on September 11, 1973 had many falls.

A few months into the new government, President Borić announced the commemoration and organization of events aimed at commemorating the coup d’état and the victims of human rights violations during the dictatorship in order to, from there, evaluate democracy and look to the future. The inspiring concepts were memory, democracy and the future. The political debate from the beginning showed a deep break with the historical significance of this date.

Memory and Controversy in Chile

For the world of the left, the coup is judged by its devastating consequences in the violation of human rights. For the right-wing and moderate sectors, the coup and human rights violations cannot be explained without understanding what happened before. At the extreme, some dismiss any critical mention of President Allende’s government as synonymous with defending Pinochet. This cost the co-ordinator of the commemoration his resignation, as he said history could continue to debate the causes of the coup. The Communist Party and human rights organizations accused him of justifying the coup.

On the other hand, there are those who justify a coup d’état and a dictatorship to save Chile from a Marxist dictatorship.

Against all odds, the debate, for the first time in decades, turned to the causes of the breakdown of democracy. Attempts to establish the official truth were unsuccessful. Discussions, chronicles, columns, seminars, documentaries and numerous publications relating to the history before the military coup have seen the light of day or have been republished. Among them, former president Patrici Aylwin’s posthumous book, The Political Experience of National Unity, which was presented at the University of Chile by former president Michelle Bachelet in the presence of President Borić. The work documents the events that worsened democracy until its collapse in 1973. Aylwin was the protagonist of that tragic moment in our history.

Disregarding form

Chile had institutional stability for forty years. Without the barracks and disintegration so common in Latin America, how was it possible for it to lose its democracy? That question requires answers by turning history, and this is a discussion that the current left (unlike the previous generation) did not want to have.

Therefore, the commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary had a different result than expected by the authorities. The latest public opinion studies show a very divided perception of the responsibilities in the coup, in which President Allende appears in the first place.

The president and the government have behaved strangely, alternating calls for unity with interventions that have contributed to the current divisions of the past. They acted by improvising, ignoring forms and political management. They reached the end of the road with proposals to political parties and former presidents for a declaration that was not previously consulted, and which the opposition parties announced they would not sign. And part of the right signed another one. Although both statements have points of contact, the political climate has made a unity meeting impossible.

Basic contracts

But despite the current polarization and disagreement, there are fundamental agreements. Condemnation of human rights violations is unanimous. A military coup as a way to resolve the conflict is not on the cards for anyone. There is a consensus that democracy is valued as the only system that enables civilized coexistence, and its necessary concern is proclaimed by all sectors. The publication of the plan to search for the missing detainees attracted the support of the majority. It is (so far) the greatest contribution of this commemoration to building a future without wounds that still remain open.

In any case, this commemoration shows us that we have a big challenge ahead of us: to improve the quality of politics. It was this one that failed in 1973 and this one is failing today. It is also what has prevented us from having a commemoration that allows us to meet again in our memory and our history so that from there, with its shadows and its lights, we can build a common future. (OR)

* Mariana Aylwin She is a Chilean professor and political leader. Former Minister of Education and former People’s Representative. President of the board of directors of Gabriela Mistral University and member of the Amarillos por Chile party.

*Text originally published in Political Dialogue