Categorizing the Chilean political violence of 1973

               

On September 11, 1973, General Pinochet led the armed forces in a military takeover of the leftist, and frankly socialist, government of Salvador Allende. How should this act of political violence be categorized? This short post will describe the violence and then compare it with different definitions, in an attempt to find the best classification. Can these events be categorized as a revolution?

Chile has had a relatively peaceful and stable history since its independence. It had endured difficult periods, but has maintained its stability and democratic system of governance. In 1970, Salvador Allende was elected democratically to the presidency with promises of social reform. He began enacting serious socialist policies of land and wealth redistribution. These facts combined with accusations of corruption between the president and supporters brought the nation to a serious ultimatum: a military takeover. General Pinochet enjoyed widespread support of the Chilean population; not all supported him, but a significant portion did. However, as Ann Matear reports in her work, after Pinochet took power, his widespread support diminished. She states, “Contrary to the expectations of many politicians and civilians who had supported the coup, the junta showed no intention of handing back power. Instead the military embarked on a radical restructuring of the Chilean state and society that transformed political, economic and social relations” (Matear, 2004). This act is often referred to as a coup d’état. What type of political violence is that though? What factors would need to play a role for this to be considered a revolution?

According to David Samuel a revolution is an “armed conflict within a sovereign state between insurgents and the state, in which (1) both the insurgents and the state claim the allegiance of a significant proportion of the population; (2) authority over the state is forcibly transferred from the state to the insurgents, and (3) the insurgents subsequently bring about wholesale political change” (Samuels, 268). It would certainly seem that, according to this definition, Chile did experience a revolution; however, according to Samuels, a coup d’état is not a revolution. He mentions that “many coups are violent, but most involve relatively little armed combat, and few involve mass popular mobilization” (Samuels, 269).

While it is true that the military struggled for only 24 hours to take control, it did cause over a thousand deaths. While perhaps not meeting the length requirement of at least one year, this case meets all of the other requirements. The Allende government still enjoyed support from a large portion of the population, as did Pinochet. Pinochet and the military did succeed in overthrowing the government and took control, and he did bring about wholesale change, wherein he turned the government into an authoritarian regime in its long transition back to democracy. This clearly meets all three of the main requirements to be classified as a revolution, though he clearly states that a coup d’état is not a revolution. In the case of this coup d’état, it is clear that it does classify as a revolution. Thus this definition offered by Samuels is fair, but it must allow for case by case interpretation.

References

Matear, Ann. Coming to Terms with the Past: Chile. History Today. April 2004. 54.4. (Accessed online November 9, 2012).

Samuels, David J. Comparative Politics. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2013.