MONGABAY.COM
Mongabay.com seeks to raise interest in and appreciation of wild lands and wildlife, while examining the impact of emerging trends in climate, technology, economics, and finance on conservation and development (more)
WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
|
|
Chile
Index
Following the wars of independence and several failed
experiments in institution building, Chile after 1830 made
steady
progress toward the construction of representative
institutions,
showing a constancy almost without parallel in South
American
political history. From 1830 until 1973, almost all of
Chile's
presidents stepped down at the end of their prescribed
terms in
office to make way for constitutionally designated
successors. The
only exceptions to this pattern occurred in 1891, after a
brief
civil war; in the turbulence from late 1924 to 1927, which
followed
the military's intervention against the populist President
Arturo
Alessandri Palma (1920-24, 1925, 1932-38); in 1931, when
several
chief executives resigned under pressure and military
officers
intervened directly in politics; and in 1932, when the
commander of
the Air Force of Chile (Fuerza Aérea de Chile--FACh),
Marmaduke
Grove Vallejo, proclaimed his short-lived Socialist
Republic. For
most of its history, Chile was governed by two
charters--the
constitution of 1833 and the constitution of 1925, which
drew
heavily on its nineteenth-century predecessor.
Under the 1833 document, Chilean presidents, notably
Manuel
Bulnes Prieto (1841-51) and Manuel Montt Torres (1851-61),
presided
over the gradual institutionalization of representative
practices
and a gradual expansion of suffrage, while exercising
strong
executive authority. By the 1870s, the president was being
challenged by increasingly cohesive political parties,
which, from
their vantage point in the National Congress (Congreso
Nacional;
hereafter, Congress), sought to limit executive
prerogatives and
curb presidential intervention in the electoral process.
With the assertion of congressional power, presidents
were
limited to one term, and their control over elections was
circumscribed. However, it took the Civil War of 1891 to
bring to
an end the chief executive's power to manipulate the
electoral
process to his advantage. The victory of the congressional
forces
in that conflict inaugurated a long period in which
Congress was at
the center of national politics. From 1891 until 1924,
presidents
were required to structure their cabinets to reflect
changing
legislative majorities, and the locus of policy making was
subject
to the intrigues and vote trading of the legislature.
Although politics during the parliamentary period was
often
chaotic and corrupt, Chile enjoyed unusual prosperity
based on a
booming nitrate trade and relatively enlightened
leadership.
Political parties, whose activities had once been limited
to the
corridors of Congress, soon engaged the interests and
energies of
Chileans at every level of society. The parties thus
provided the
basis for an open, highly competitive political system
comparable
to those of Europe's parliamentary democracies. The
competitiveness
of Chilean politics permitted the emergence of new
interests and
movements, including the Communist Party of Chile (Partido
Comunista de Chile--PCCh) and the Socialist Party (Partido
Socialista--PS), representing a growing and increasingly
militant
proletariat.
The collapse of nitrate exports and the crisis brought
on by
the
Great Depression (see
Glossary) of the 1930s
discredited the
politicians of Chile's oligarchical democracy and
encouraged the
growth of alternative political forces. From 1924 to 1931,
Chile
was buffeted by political instability as several
presidents
resigned from office and Carlos Ibáñez del Campo (1927-31,
1952-
58), a military officer, rose to power on an antipolitics
platform.
In 1925 a new constitution was approved. Although it did
not
deviate substantially from previous constitutional
doctrine, it was
designed to shift the balance of power from Congress back
to the
president.
By the second and third decades of the twentieth
century, Chile
was facing some of the same challenges confronting the
nations of
Europe. Parliamentary democracy had fallen into disrepute
as the
machinations of corrupt elites were challenged by both
fascism and
socialism, doctrines that stressed social as opposed to
political
rights and that sought to expand the power of the state in
pursuing
them. Precisely because of its tradition of competitive
politics
and the strength of its political parties, Chile was able
to
withstand the challenge of alternative ideologies without
experiencing the breakdown of democratic authority that
swept the
South American continent.
Chilean politics changed dramatically, however, as a
multiparty
system emerged without exact parallel in Latin America,
one in
which strong Marxist parties vied with conservative
parties, while
pragmatic centrist parties attempted to mediate. In this
polarized
context, presidents governed with shifting coalitions,
pushing the
country alternately to the right or left, depending on the
particular political configuration of the moment. Although
the left
gained ground throughout the 1940s and 1950s, the right
maintained
electoral clout by blocking efforts to bring congressional
representation into line with new demographic trends. This
was not
a period of policy stalemate, however. By encouraging a
policy of
import-substitution
industrialization (see Glossary) and
expanding
social welfare programs, the Chilean state markedly
increased its
role in national life.
In the aftermath of the Cuban Revolution of 1959,
Chilean
politics changed in a qualitative sense. With the 1964
election of
a Christian Democratic government under the leadership of
President
Eduardo Frei Montalva (1964-70), Chile embarked on an
experiment in
reformist politics intended to energize the economy while
redistributing wealth. Frei and his colleagues were
determined to
modernize the country through the introduction of
significant
social reforms, including an extensive agrarian reform
that would
bring an end to the concentration of economic power in the
hands of
rural landlords.
Frei's government accomplished many of its objectives.
In
pushing for change, however, the president broke the tacit
alliance
with the right that had made his election possible. His
attempt to
co-opt part of the program of the left and mobilize
followers in
traditionally leftist constituencies also threatened the
Marxist
parties. By the end of the 1960s, the polarization of
Chilean
politics had overwhelmed the traditional civility of
Chile's
vaunted democratic institutions. The centrist agreements
of the
past, which had enabled presidents to navigate a difficult
course
of compromise and conciliation, now became more difficult
to
attain.
In a reflection of Chile's increased ideological
polarization,
Allende was elected president with 36.2 percent of the
vote in
1970. Unable or unwilling to form coalitions, the left,
center, and
right had all nominated their own candidates in the
mistaken hope
of obtaining a majority. Although Allende's Popular Unity
(Unidad
Popular--UP) government drew initially on the
congressional support
of the Christian Democrats, whose backing made his
election
possible in the congressional runoff on October 24, 1970,
the left
increasingly pushed to implement its agenda without
building
political bridges to the "bourgeois parties." Like Frei
before him,
Allende was convinced that he would be able to break the
deadlock
of Chile's ideologically entrenched multiparty system and
create a
new majority capable of implementing his revolutionary
agenda. Once
this effort failed, Allende's attempts to implement his
program by
decree only heightened opposition to his policies.
Finally, the
president's failure to make substantial gains from his
electoral
victory in the March 1973 congressional elections meant
that he
would be unable to obtain the necessary congressional
majority to
implement his legislative objectives (see
table 34,
Appendix). In
an atmosphere of growing confrontation, in which moderates
on both
sides failed to come up with a regime-saving compromise,
the
military forces moved in to break the political deadlock,
establishing the longest and most revolutionary government
in the
nation's history.
Data as of March 1994
Development and Breakdown of Democracy, 1830-1973
Following the wars of independence and several failed
experiments in institution building, Chile after 1830 made
steady
progress toward the construction of representative
institutions,
showing a constancy almost without parallel in South
American
political history. From 1830 until 1973, almost all of
Chile's
presidents stepped down at the end of their prescribed
terms in
office to make way for constitutionally designated
successors. The
only exceptions to this pattern occurred in 1891, after a
brief
civil war; in the turbulence from late 1924 to 1927, which
followed
the military's intervention against the populist President
Arturo
Alessandri Palma (1920-24, 1925, 1932-38); in 1931, when
several
chief executives resigned under pressure and military
officers
intervened directly in politics; and in 1932, when the
commander of
the Air Force of Chile (Fuerza Aérea de Chile--FACh),
Marmaduke
Grove Vallejo, proclaimed his short-lived Socialist
Republic. For
most of its history, Chile was governed by two
charters--the
constitution of 1833 and the constitution of 1925, which
drew
heavily on its nineteenth-century predecessor.
Under the 1833 document, Chilean presidents, notably
Manuel
Bulnes Prieto (1841-51) and Manuel Montt Torres (1851-61),
presided
over the gradual institutionalization of representative
practices
and a gradual expansion of suffrage, while exercising
strong
executive authority. By the 1870s, the president was being
challenged by increasingly cohesive political parties,
which, from
their vantage point in the National Congress (Congreso
Nacional;
hereafter, Congress), sought to limit executive
prerogatives and
curb presidential intervention in the electoral process.
With the assertion of congressional power, presidents
were
limited to one term, and their control over elections was
circumscribed. However, it took the Civil War of 1891 to
bring to
an end the chief executive's power to manipulate the
electoral
process to his advantage. The victory of the congressional
forces
in that conflict inaugurated a long period in which
Congress was at
the center of national politics. From 1891 until 1924,
presidents
were required to structure their cabinets to reflect
changing
legislative majorities, and the locus of policy making was
subject
to the intrigues and vote trading of the legislature.
Although politics during the parliamentary period was
often
chaotic and corrupt, Chile enjoyed unusual prosperity
based on a
booming nitrate trade and relatively enlightened
leadership.
Political parties, whose activities had once been limited
to the
corridors of Congress, soon engaged the interests and
energies of
Chileans at every level of society. The parties thus
provided the
basis for an open, highly competitive political system
comparable
to those of Europe's parliamentary democracies. The
competitiveness
of Chilean politics permitted the emergence of new
interests and
movements, including the Communist Party of Chile (Partido
Comunista de Chile--PCCh) and the Socialist Party (Partido
Socialista--PS), representing a growing and increasingly
militant
proletariat.
The collapse of nitrate exports and the crisis brought
on by
the
Great Depression (see
Glossary) of the 1930s
discredited the
politicians of Chile's oligarchical democracy and
encouraged the
growth of alternative political forces. From 1924 to 1931,
Chile
was buffeted by political instability as several
presidents
resigned from office and Carlos Ibáñez del Campo (1927-31,
1952-
58), a military officer, rose to power on an antipolitics
platform.
In 1925 a new constitution was approved. Although it did
not
deviate substantially from previous constitutional
doctrine, it was
designed to shift the balance of power from Congress back
to the
president.
By the second and third decades of the twentieth
century, Chile
was facing some of the same challenges confronting the
nations of
Europe. Parliamentary democracy had fallen into disrepute
as the
machinations of corrupt elites were challenged by both
fascism and
socialism, doctrines that stressed social as opposed to
political
rights and that sought to expand the power of the state in
pursuing
them. Precisely because of its tradition of competitive
politics
and the strength of its political parties, Chile was able
to
withstand the challenge of alternative ideologies without
experiencing the breakdown of democratic authority that
swept the
South American continent.
Chilean politics changed dramatically, however, as a
multiparty
system emerged without exact parallel in Latin America,
one in
which strong Marxist parties vied with conservative
parties, while
pragmatic centrist parties attempted to mediate. In this
polarized
context, presidents governed with shifting coalitions,
pushing the
country alternately to the right or left, depending on the
particular political configuration of the moment. Although
the left
gained ground throughout the 1940s and 1950s, the right
maintained
electoral clout by blocking efforts to bring congressional
representation into line with new demographic trends. This
was not
a period of policy stalemate, however. By encouraging a
policy of
import-substitution
industrialization (see Glossary) and
expanding
social welfare programs, the Chilean state markedly
increased its
role in national life.
In the aftermath of the Cuban Revolution of 1959,
Chilean
politics changed in a qualitative sense. With the 1964
election of
a Christian Democratic government under the leadership of
President
Eduardo Frei Montalva (1964-70), Chile embarked on an
experiment in
reformist politics intended to energize the economy while
redistributing wealth. Frei and his colleagues were
determined to
modernize the country through the introduction of
significant
social reforms, including an extensive agrarian reform
that would
bring an end to the concentration of economic power in the
hands of
rural landlords.
Frei's government accomplished many of its objectives.
In
pushing for change, however, the president broke the tacit
alliance
with the right that had made his election possible. His
attempt to
co-opt part of the program of the left and mobilize
followers in
traditionally leftist constituencies also threatened the
Marxist
parties. By the end of the 1960s, the polarization of
Chilean
politics had overwhelmed the traditional civility of
Chile's
vaunted democratic institutions. The centrist agreements
of the
past, which had enabled presidents to navigate a difficult
course
of compromise and conciliation, now became more difficult
to
attain.
In a reflection of Chile's increased ideological
polarization,
Allende was elected president with 36.2 percent of the
vote in
1970. Unable or unwilling to form coalitions, the left,
center, and
right had all nominated their own candidates in the
mistaken hope
of obtaining a majority. Although Allende's Popular Unity
(Unidad
Popular--UP) government drew initially on the
congressional support
of the Christian Democrats, whose backing made his
election
possible in the congressional runoff on October 24, 1970,
the left
increasingly pushed to implement its agenda without
building
political bridges to the "bourgeois parties." Like Frei
before him,
Allende was convinced that he would be able to break the
deadlock
of Chile's ideologically entrenched multiparty system and
create a
new majority capable of implementing his revolutionary
agenda. Once
this effort failed, Allende's attempts to implement his
program by
decree only heightened opposition to his policies.
Finally, the
president's failure to make substantial gains from his
electoral
victory in the March 1973 congressional elections meant
that he
would be unable to obtain the necessary congressional
majority to
implement his legislative objectives (see
table 34,
Appendix). In
an atmosphere of growing confrontation, in which moderates
on both
sides failed to come up with a regime-saving compromise,
the
military forces moved in to break the political deadlock,
establishing the longest and most revolutionary government
in the
nation's history.
Data as of March 1994
|
|