Replies

Both Franco and Pinochet used the same technique: They routed out civil dissenters that were remnants of the previous regime, and had them executed, usually after a trial, usually for treason and/or violent crimes. Treason is punishable by death in most countries, and so is murder. Criminally interfering foreigners were also executed.

Franco's people and Pinochet's people both saw their leaders as interim, benevolent dictators. They were tough on crime and focused on rebuilding their countries economically. They had few restrictions on religion.

Pinochet and Franco are both painted as bad guys by the main stream media. That fact, in and of itself, should be enough to make one want to do a little more research.

Both Franco and Pinochet used the same technique: They routed out civil dissenters that were remnants of the previous regime, and had them executed, usually after a trial, usually for treason and/or violent crimes.

I don't know about Franco, but Pinochet's government executed or "disappeared" thousands of dissidents and most of them did not have the luxury of a trial.

Franco's people and Pinochet's people both saw their leaders as interim, benevolent dictators.

Seventeen years is not interim and executing thousands of political prisoners is not benevolent.

Franco's people and Pinochet's people both saw their leaders as interim, benevolent dictators.

If the Chilean people saw Pinochet as a benevolent dictator, then why did hundreds of thousands of them risk their lives in a non-violent movement designed to force him out of office?

Re:(Ask me about the connection between Socialism, Communism, Drug Warlords and Vodka.)

Interesting tag lie, care to elaborate?

History is full of such dilemmas. Innocent people as well as criminals die during the process of "civilizing" nations. In the political chaos of the environment still to be civilized, due process is not always politically possible. The leader's focus is on eradicating the destablizing influences that prevent a civil society from taking root, and sometimes drastic measures are taken. Later, a tradition of the rule of law, property rights and participatory government reinforces the establishment of a democratic tradition, yielding a long term stable democracy. However, without a leader ferociously protecting that tradition, destablizing forces can prevent this maturation from occurring.

A number of writers have picked up on this theme in the past few years, in different ways. Hernando de Soto, Fareed Zakaria and Niell Fergusen all yield insights that perhaps justify Pinochet's heavy hand. Chile has certainly benefited as a result. The question before us now, is how far we are willing to go to ensure the evolution of civil society in the Middle East and Southern Asia.