Plebiscite In Chile

752 Words 4 Pages
The status of Latin American Governments has ranged from opposite ideological ends of the spectrum. After Salvador Allende, who was democratically elected by the Chilean people, was over thrown by Agusto Pinochet due to poor economic reform and a spike in inflation, the state of Chile efficiently turned around the economy because of neo-liberal economic policy enforced by not a democratic government but an authoritarian state. Pinochet’s powers associated with being a dictator allowed him to foster a growing economy due to the absence of obstacles proposed by democratic governments like that of Salvador Allende’s. The regime under Allende had an immense amount of troubles not being able to foster economic growth leading to inevitable discontent …show more content…
The rise of bureaucratic authoritarianism from a democratic government reflects how negative the economic situation is. The 1981 plebiscite in Chile demonstrated that the people wanted Pinochet’s brutal dictatorship to remain in power for the success on his economic reconstruction. The “Chilean economic miracle” that started in 1997 had unimaginable economic growth. The annual expansion of the economy was 6-8%, being extremely high. It is the norm in the United States to say that democracy is the way the government should be run and nothing good can come out of authoritarianism. On the contrary the results of the plebiscite in Chile show that a democratic government who couldn’t efficiently have a progressing economy, led their constituents to be so discontent that they’d prefer a brutal dictatorship like that of Pinochet’s to be in power. Had Salvador Allende’s regime provided efficient economic policies that fostered growth, a feeling of discontent would not be present among his constituents and the democratic government would have remained in power. After the plebiscite and another 8 years of power, Pinochet issues a second referendum where the constituents agree on a return to democracy. The policies passed by Pinochet fostered a positive economy, creating a culture of protection on individual rights that is in the heart of a democratic government and Salvador …show more content…
The result of internal legislature conflict can lead to gridlock and a reactive legislature. When the president of a country has to deal with parties, make coalitions and basically jumps through hoops to the get on the same page as the legislature, the efficiency of the government is not at all positive and the constituents are left unsatisfied. The success of Pinochet’s regime owes a great deal to the “Chicago boys” who were economist who were brought in to help Pinochet restore a broken economy in a very utilitarian manner. By eliminating parties that can be detrimental to the efficiency of a government Pinochet had the ability to effectively pass the legislation he deemed necessary to create a better economy on the basis of what the Economist instructed him to do, even if there were to be short term consequences. The failure of Salvador Allendes democratic government who then transitioned into a brutal dictatorship, who was supported by the masses, clearly shows that solely a democratic government will not foster a successful economy. Carlos Perez did not democratically pass legislature as who took populist principles to improve the economy. Without having a middle and working class , who are established by an efficient economy , an emphasis on property rights

Related Documents