Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Gopher]

The Dec. 2005 presidential election was not conclusive and the country will hold a run-off on 15 Jan.

On the one hand, the left, the party in power via the Concertacion coalition, is running former Defense Minister Socialist Michelle Bachelet. She is currently polling 46% of the vote. (Her father was an Air Force general in '73, and sympathetic to the Allende regime. Pinochet's group arrested and tortured him, and Bachelet and her mother as well.) She is likely the next president -- and the first female president in Chilean history.

On the other hand, the right is now coalescing around millionaire Sebastian Pinera, now that Joaquin Lavin, the former mayor of Las Condes, has recognized his defeat. Together they won approximately 47% of the vote.

To a great deal of Chilean voters the question is reduced to one simplistic issue: are you a pinochetista? If you are not, you vote for the Concertacion, a not entirely stable coalition, but held together by the obvious glue, and if you are pinochetista, you vote for the right. In this case, the right fielded two candidates, because, as usual, there was bickering. Now they are hoping to come together and take back la Mondeda -- and this is not likely to occur.

There is at least as much hatred between partisans there as there is between Democrats and Republicans in the U.S., except in this case, the hatred extends outside of politics, of course. In Santiago, the dividing line is clearly those who live east or west of Plaza Italia.

One of the articles I cite below, for your perusal, mentions that voter turnout is high and therefore Chileans take democracy seriously.

In a sense this is true. But this was obviously written by a journalist who has never lived in Chile. For those who are registered, voting is obligatory. If you are registered and you do not vote, you will be fined a great deal of money and will not be able to get a driver's license. Chile closes down all establishments at midnight before an election, prohibits the consumption of alcohol, declares a federal holiday on election day, and the military comes out in force to keep people in line and protect the integrity of the polls. It is a kind of paternalistic, authoritarian democracy. (Not just for elections. If you go on a hunger strike, for example, they will detain you and force-feed you for your own good. Just a different view on free will and voluntarism than we have in the States.)

I know many young Chileans who think it is all a farce and have never even registered to vote, however. So they evade the fines but will not participate in elections or politics.

In any case, it will be interesting to see what will happen in Chile this month.

http://www.emol.com/especiales/elecciones2005_votacion/index.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/11/chile.elections.ap/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4517916.stm

A note on South American party affiliations: Western Europeans are used to "Socialist" being more moderate and centrist than "Communist." But in South America, this is reversed: Socialism is much more radical than Communism, as far as political parties go. This caused many to see Allende as Willy Brandt, which he was not. See Vargas Llosa's Real Life of Alejandro Mayta for a great look at the South American left.

Still, in contemporary Chile, a "protected" democracy, protected by constant military vigilance and preparedness to intervene if the civilians mistep, this matters very little. They can be very radical in their rhetoric but they cannot go outside of the lines the military painted for them in Pinochet's 1988 constitution. The Concertacion has been attempting to change at least parts of this constitution since the 1990s, but with little luck. Before leaving office, Pinochet appointed just enough "Senators for life" that all efforts to make significant changes to the constitution he dictated will likely fail, at least into the near future, just as he intended.

[Gopher]

Ah.

This is a somewhat significant event in the Western Hemisphere, not to mention the probable election of a female Chilean president -- which in itself is uncommon enough, and, moreover, will be increasingly interesting if Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination in 2008.

But this subject does not excite the U.S. critics, has nothing to do with W. Bush or the Iraqi War, and does not give the Canadians an opportunity to cite their moral superiority to Americans.

Therefore it generates no comment.

Disappointing.

[Manner of Speaking]

Well, here's a comment.

Since the Cold War is over, and Chile -- and the rest of Latin America -- are in no danger of becoming Soviet satellites, who really cares anymore? So what if some country in the extreme south of the western hemisphere goes a little pink?

No skin off my nose. ** shrug **

[Manner of Speaking]

Also, your second message was posted a mere 17 minutes after the first.

Are you really that upset that you didn't get any response, in less than 20 minutes after you started the thread?

[Gopher]

[Manner of Speaking]

Whoops, one day and 17 minutes, I stand corrected. (Thanks Mith! )

[Gopher]