The Insurrection of the Bourgeoisie

The political economy of the period spanning 1970-1973 was determined by the election of Salvador Allende Gossens as president of Chile and the popular victory of his coalition government, Unidad Popular (U.P.) Allende and other U. P. candidates were elected on a platform of building democratic socialism, which Allende termed "the Chilean road to socialism."1 The U.P.'s victory has largely been attributed to its populist appeal to broad sections of the working- and lower-middle classes.

Allende himself earned a plurality, not a majority, of the popular vote (36.3%). This signified from the beginning that Allende and his party did not have the political mandate of majority consensus to begin sprinting down the road to socialism. Indeed, Chile at the time was already bitterly divided politically. The politics of individual Chileans generally corresponded to their socio-economic status. The working class, students, and parts of the middle class generally supported U. P. candidates or other left/center-left parties, while most of the middle and upper classes supported the centrist Christian Democratic or right-wing Radical and National parties.

Patricio Guzman perfectly illustrates the degree and intensity of the left-right divide in the first part of his ground-breaking documentary film, THE BATTLE OF CHILE, which opens on the eve of the 1973 congressional elections. In a series of impromptu street interviews, Guzman asks relatively simple questions to gauge the degree of public support for Allende's coalition government. Responses vary drastically, from heartfelt support to indignation and anger. U. P. supporters espouse their pride in Allende and their elected government, and feel hopeful that they will gain a larger percentage of the popular vote than the 1970 and 1971 elections. Supporters of opposition candidates seem confident that U.P. will be defeated, but disturbingly appear to see in the other side their own perceptions of the political incarnations of evil.


Patricio Guzman, THE BATTLE OF CHILE Part I: The Insurrection of the Bourgeoisie

The final part of the film documents the outcome of the elections, where the U.P. captures 43% of the popular vote. The victory does not sit well with the opposition, which Guzman follows as it becomes increasingly more militant. The first part of the film closes with the failed coup attempt by a faction of the armed forces in June.


Patricio Guzman, THE BATTLE OF CHILE Part I: The Insurrection of the Bourgeoisie

The intensity of the political battles grew and street demonstrations and riots manifested, culminating in the failed coup attempt. The growing violence demonstrated the deep socio-economic and political divide between factions of the population, and lent credence to the thesis of the existence of "two Chiles."

1 Peter Winn, Victims of the Chilean Miracle (Duke University Press: Durham, 2004) 16.

Project Abstract

Introduction: One Policy for "Two Chiles"

Economists, political scientists, sociologists, historians, and academics of every stripe have made cogent observations about the Manichaean characteristics of contemporary political economy in Latin America. Political economist Javier Santiso, in his 2005 book LATIN AMERICA'S POLITICAL ECONOMY OF THE POSSIBLE: BEYOND 'GOOD REVOLUTIONARIES' AND FREE-MARKETEERS, makes a very convincing argument that the past half-decade in Latin America has indeed been marked by the figurative and literal battles between "good revolutionaries," i.e. socialists, communists, and Marxists of the Che Guevara/Fidel Castro or Salvador Allende persuasion, and free-market fundamentalists typified by the "Chicago boys" in Chile after the 1973 coup. Santiso's general thesis is that the polities of Latin America, exhausted by decades of partisan struggle and disillusioned by the evident failures of utopian ideologies, have now opted instead for democracy and a cautious embrace of market capitalism tempered by progressive social spending and pragmatic reform in a system Santiso terms economic "possibilism."1 If one is to believe Santiso's thesis, in no country in Latin America is this new style of political economy more evident (and arguably successful) than Chile.

Chile is the perfect nation with which to test Santiso's thesis because it has historically been the most highly-polarized and therefore electorally predictable nation in Latin America. Chilean society remains divided on socio-economic and political lines so much so that many have been prompted to note the presence of "two Chiles, one rich, the other poor."2

The purpose of this project is thus twofold; first, to identify the prevalent characteristics of Chile's political economy, from the election of Salvador Allende Gossens (a committed Marxist and scrupulous democrat) in 1970, through the dictatorial reign of General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte from 1973-1989, and finally to the earnest re-emergence of democracy during the Concertación (1989-Present). The second purpose is to attempt to respond to this question I will posit myself: if Chileans have indeed embraced market "possibilism" as Javier Santiso claims, what does this mean for the Left in Chile, which has historically defined itself in opposition to market capitalism? I feel that this question has particular relevance and resonance since the election of Socialist candidates Ricardo Lagos and Michele Bachelet to the presidency in 2000 and 2006, respectively. How have their policies confirmed or rejected Santiso's thesis?

1. Javier Santiso, Latin America's Political Economy of the Possible (MIT Press: Cambridge, 2005).
2. Peter Winn, Victims of the Chilean Miracle (Duke University Press: Durham, 2004) 1.