A piece of advice often offered to travelers is to be circumspect about discussing politics when in another country, or better yet, to avoid it altogether. Passions can run high, especially if the subject of the United States’ role in the global arena arises, which it almost inevitably will, and sentiments are not always the most friendly in that regard.
However, studying abroad inherently entails some risk, and when you’re a political science major, you basically have to break this cardinal rule of the safe traveler. Otherwise, what the hell is the point?
My semester thus far in Chile has been full of surprises. Some have been fantastic, like the fact that an economics class could consist of a vineyard tour and wine tasting. Others have been more unsettling.
Chile endured a military dictatorship under General Augusto Pinochet from 1973 to 1990. Tens of thousands of people were killed during this time, and many more tortured or wrongly imprisoned. Perhaps most shocking to me was the fact that not only were women and children included in this fate, but also pregnant women. Many people simply disappeared, and there are still family members and friends wondering what exactly happened to their loved ones.
This aspect of Chile’s history was appalling but not that surprising. Having grown up in the U.S., I’ve always read about the horrors of dictatorships and expect such brutality of them. What is really interesting is talking to people here about the Pinochet regime.
Some prefer not to discuss it at all. The memories are still raw, and there are many Chileans who simply want to look to the future. In fact at times it is almost mind-boggling how much people seem to ignore their history. I visited an old detention center converted into a museum and on my way there, I got lost. Out of about seven people whom I asked for directions, only one knew what I was talking about but had no idea where the museum was. When I finally got directions from a hotel concierge, I discovered that the whole time, I had been within three blocks of the building.
It baffled me that people could be so ignorant of something that played such a huge role in their history. But like I said, the popular thing to do in Chile is to look ahead rather than dwell on the past.
Then, of course, there’s the fact that despite the human rights abuses committed by the Pinochet regime, he still has supporters. I knew they must exist, in theory, because even a dictator can’t remain in power for over a decade without the support of some branch of society.
These days, no one really says that they are in favor of a dictatorship, or that Pinochet did everything right. But what was surprising to me was the sheer normalcy of some people not denouncing him outright.
My host mother here, a petite stay-at-home mom (and one of the greatest cooks I’ve ever met) told me that the dictatorship was a “necessary evil” in the history of Chile.
Prior to the dictatorship, Chile had a democratic socialist president named Salvador Allende. Although Allende allowed political dissidence and was popular among the poor, his economic policies severely crippled Chile’s economy.
After Pinochet took power, he handed the Chilean economy over to a group of men known as the Chicago Boys, Chileans who had studied economics at the University of Chicago and became committed to the neoliberal model. State companies were privatized, and the Chilean market opened to foreign investors. Although the first two years of the Pinochet regime saw an unprecedented drop in employment and a rise in poverty levels and food prices, over time the Chilean economy converted to capitalism quite successfully.
So a common argument among some Chileans is that the dictatorship was necessary for the economic progress of Chile. Without it, some people (including my host mom) worry that Chile would have stagnated and collapsed. Pinochet’s mistake, supposedly, was assuming that every low-income individual or member of a different party was a terrorist against the state. But apparently, to some, that mistake is forgivable in light of the economic progress of the country.
Of course there are also many Chileans who believe that tradeing human rights for economic benefits is never right, and I still side with them in this debate. But hearing from those who disagree; from those who emphasize positive after-effects of the dictatorship, has given me a new perspective on how countries recover from traumatic periods in their history.
In political science classes, a hot topic is the issue of whether former dictators ousted from power should face trial or if they should receive amnesty in order to allow the country to move on. There tends to be a visceral aversion to granting amnesty simply because these leaders have inflicted so much damage that resonates on a personal level for so many people. But on the other hand, Chilean society seems to be recovering pretty well from the dictatorship. So while I’m still not entirely comfortable with the concept of amnesty for dictators, my time here has helped me understand why some people can be.
Hearing such a range of opinions straight from Chileans has taught me more than any reading or class assignment ever could. So my advice to travelers is as follows: don’t be an idiot about it, but talk politics abroad whenever you can.
