Justified Aggression
Bachelet stayed firm today, delivering a golf clap and flashing her sweet, sweet maternal smile as she signed a pro-kindergarten bill into law, seemingly oblivious as police force bolstered by 1,000 doused hundreds of labor protesters with teargas-laced water cannons, arrested hundreds of demonstrators and bloodied a Senator who had gotten in the mix.
Bachelet did take a moment to address the protests.
This is a democracy, she said, but there are limits. In this democracy, goals are achieved through dialog, and not through violence.
The organizer of the United Workers Central (CUT), her clothes soaked and eyes blinking rapidly from tear gas exposure, told a group of reporters that the only "violence" that occurred was carried out by the police.
TV images show a reporter's leg caught fire after a masked protester threw a molotov cocktail at a group of police officers, one cop dove onto the reporter to extinguish the flames.
One man called into the MEGA TV station and described the governmental repression as "worse than the dictatorship". Another Chilean, reacting to the extreme violence of the police force, and the fact that Senator Navarro's head had been bloodied, described the Chilean government as "absolutely unconstitutional".
Nevertheless, Bachelet's measured words and firm stance give cause for reassurance. This is no floundering government, blown by the trade winds of fickle folly and untempered passion. This master estrategista, who chooses her words so wisely knows when to call foul, putting her fist down when prize-dog soccer players physically attack Canadian police officers and destroy property, the cops' actions then constituted "unjustified aggression".
But when peaceful protesters whose worse offense was to block traffic and march without a permit (it would have been impossible to obtain permission for a citywide protest), that's when the limits of Chileans Democracy run out.
Update: yes, there were violent protesters, but as I point out in the comments below, the police should have isolated them. Many of those attacked were completely non-violent.
Update 2: I deleted the first few comments, an exchange that was completely devoid of useful content. For the record, anyone can email me with editorial suggestions, but when posting comments please keep them semi-interesting, remember that I'm not the only one reading them. Thanks :-)
Bachelet did take a moment to address the protests.
This is a democracy, she said, but there are limits. In this democracy, goals are achieved through dialog, and not through violence.
The organizer of the United Workers Central (CUT), her clothes soaked and eyes blinking rapidly from tear gas exposure, told a group of reporters that the only "violence" that occurred was carried out by the police.
TV images show a reporter's leg caught fire after a masked protester threw a molotov cocktail at a group of police officers, one cop dove onto the reporter to extinguish the flames.
One man called into the MEGA TV station and described the governmental repression as "worse than the dictatorship". Another Chilean, reacting to the extreme violence of the police force, and the fact that Senator Navarro's head had been bloodied, described the Chilean government as "absolutely unconstitutional".
Nevertheless, Bachelet's measured words and firm stance give cause for reassurance. This is no floundering government, blown by the trade winds of fickle folly and untempered passion. This master estrategista, who chooses her words so wisely knows when to call foul, putting her fist down when prize-dog soccer players physically attack Canadian police officers and destroy property, the cops' actions then constituted "unjustified aggression".
But when peaceful protesters whose worse offense was to block traffic and march without a permit (it would have been impossible to obtain permission for a citywide protest), that's when the limits of Chileans Democracy run out.
Update: yes, there were violent protesters, but as I point out in the comments below, the police should have isolated them. Many of those attacked were completely non-violent.
Update 2: I deleted the first few comments, an exchange that was completely devoid of useful content. For the record, anyone can email me with editorial suggestions, but when posting comments please keep them semi-interesting, remember that I'm not the only one reading them. Thanks :-)
posted by Chileno @ 10:26 AM
Share on Facebook
Search This Blog:
20 Comments:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ooops - I'm itching to respond energetically again !! ;-)
Actually, I agree with Jeff in some important ways - *ducks*.
Let's see - his salient points were :
1. I'm a frequent reader for some time.
...That applies to me too, of course - I suspect because Jeff and I both enjoy your interesting, at times 'irreverant' blog.
2. He's lived in Chile for 10+ years and realizes that there are many good things - and obvious bad things as well.
...Well, I've spent the equivalent of 5 years there - spanning terrible times in the late-80's as well as the recovery after 1990 through the Aylwin, Frei and Lagos years. The 'recovery' is not fast enough, of course - but steady improvement nevertheless(more about that later).
3. He'd like to see your blog appeal to more people - people who won't get turned off by 'imbalance', let's say.
I think that Jeff is a "Chileno-fan", as I am ... and sometimes an outsider's view can shed light on what we write, or how we write it - from the readers' viewpoint.
I agree that you have written about some 'good' things about Chile ... but over-energetic ripostes to mild suggestions from readers/admirers really can weaken your always-interesting writings. Perhaps I'm more of a "Charlie Rose fan" than a "Hitchens-fan" - in the way they reach out to their readers. (I guess you're PBS-deprived down there ... Pity!! But there's always CNN - *pukes* - to watch.
So JEFF - hang in there, amigo. Have a drink with Will, if you're in Santiago. He's worth it in so many ways. He'll 'challenge' you, as well as 'charm' you - as he did me last May.
None of the above adds significant meat to your arguments, Will - but 'comments' are just that. Merely comments.
But maybe I'll dig into my attitudes and opinions a bit - and try to add something of substance (not wanting to be dismissed as trivial or illiterate). Maybe e-mails or writing in my own ignored blog is a better place than this 'comments' section of YOUR blog.
I think I'll start by pointing out that real substantive change in a culture (admittedly of historical greed) and a country takes many decades, generations even, to take hold. Steady improvement, even when disappointingly slow, is what must be encouraged. Especially in these days when Friedman-dogma about unfettered free-markets seems to dominate the world ... spreading from the USA, through its instruments like the IMF and World Bank.
There are so many good authors down there - who write substantial stuff about the emerging Chilean economy, some of it as critical as yours, some of it delving into the real problems of the wealth distribution challenges in South American economies. Dig into stuff by Alejandro Foxley, Senator Fernando Flores, Senator Juan-Pablo Letelier, and Eduardo Aninat, to name a few from both sides of some economic arguments.
Foxley is currently (I believe) Foreign Relations Minister and has been Ministro de Hacienda (in Aylwin's days), as has been Aninat.
I've greatly enjoyed listening to Marcel Claude and would like to find some of his writings. But social-progress must be fought on many fronts, over many years. "Instant-fixes" never work, as both Allende and Pinochet's 'Chicago Boys' demonstrated. But, Hell, Pin8 is dead (As in Angelini !! I met him a number of times - story for another time - another 'greed-baron'), and good men and women are working hard in Chile to make things better.
You and I are both frustrated, angry and disappointed, methinks, in the progress (or lack of it) during Lagos' time - and even Sra. Bachelet's. But they are dedicated, well-meaning, hard-workers - on an ENORMOUS problem of historical dimensions. That of wealth redistribution in growth economies (or 'how to pry the fucking GOLD out of wealthy hands).
I still want you to meet (and maybe interview) ILLAPU's Roberto Marquez - who has similar critical views and angry disappointment at the performance of the Concertacion.
Abrazos desde Canada ...
Interesting post, but I think you misunderstand marches in Chile. By now, they are a real institution. You seem to be under the impression that someone sets up a march, sets out peacefully, and is brutally attacked in an unprovoked manner by the police.
I think something more subtle is happening here. One can argue about who exactly hit who first this particular time until one is blue in the face, but I think what really happens is the cops set out expecting someone to want to hit them, and perhaps even wanting to vent their own anger hitting someone.
Some protesters are just out to march peacefully, but others are really out to kick some carabinero ass, as evidenced by molotov cocktails which have been prepared ahead of time for the occasion. There are peaceful demonstrators, to be sure, but there are people on both sides who basically set out that day to beat someone up.
The narrative of the poor police attacked by an angry mob is as false as that of innocent marching people who never expected these "desordenes" when the green men attacked them with water cannons.
It's something of a ritual already, something people prepare for like you would for a date, titillating with anticipation.
I was at Alameda once, during a demonstration by the pinguinos. Most of the "enmascarados" were clearly to old to be schoolchildren, but that wasn't too remarkable or surprising. What struck me on that occasion was the fact that there were plenty of regular, tie-wearing, on-the-way-home-from-the-office types who just took the opportunity to pick up a rock and hurl it at the police. Bad blood runs deep on both sides.
The disturbances on Alameda close to La Moneda and U. de Chile are relatively tame, and hence also amply covered by professional and amateur photographers, but in "poblaciones marginales" things get really ugly sometimes, especially after dark. There the guns come out.
Take care, C.hileno
Tom: Jeff could be right about appeal, but I think he'd make a more convincing argument if he used anecdotes. Suggesting editorial changes is condescending, whereas contributing to the discussion is inspiring. I don't always mind being condescended to, or suggested to, or whatever, but for someone who's read this blog for so long, Jeff would do better reflecting a little more awareness of the past "Chile good, Chile bad" debate. An exemplary commentator was Vinkoval.
Tom don't worry you contribute plenty of good ideas, on to your points:
>>>Steady improvement, even when disappointingly slow, is what must be encouraged.
I've heard this before and it's a great way to argue for so-called "centrism" by juxtaposing it to the painful extremism of Allende and Pinochet. In Latin America, so the argument goes, you can't just go around having a coup every few years, so despite being numbingly slow, this is the way to slowly progress.
Listen, I'm all for democracy and wealthy society and I understand that it can't happen overnight. But left to those in power, this 'wealthy' society is never going to happen, not because of the "rate" at which it is progressing, but simply because of the "way" it is progressing. Notice all the dramatically top-right bound graphs under Lagos, displaying centralized economic growth as well as inequality. He ended up calling Angelini and Luksic "forgers of the nation" and I appreciate his honesty. But that was only after he got elected by a Chilean majority, socialists and communists who had a dramatically different vision for the country. Bachelet is but an extension of Lagos with a few extra daycare programs.
It's hard to see progress. Yes, you've been around here longer and you see more pavement and you have a friend with a rags-to-riches story that couldn't have happened before, fine. There's more consumption, too. But walk into any department store, make a $5 purchase and if you pay with an ATM card they'll ask you if you want to pay in installments, cuotas.
Payments on a box of cereal.
That's what's so depressing, is that at least 80% of Chileans are living like that, with less than 400 bucks/month to a head, there is no dignity and there's no sign that it's going to change.
When people demonstrate for more equality, Bachelet has absolutely no qualms about unleashing violent police force against them. Then she calls the protesters "violent" (can't you feel the love for her people), and tells them that this committee on an "Ethical Wage" is going to work it out. This committee includes Juaquin Lavin, of Pinochet's party, dude. That committee, is going to come up with a series of "recommendations" without consequence, it's a total farce and everybody knows it.
I don't see slow progress, I see continued exploitation and a government to whom its people vale callampa, wn.
Christian: thanks for rounding out the my characterization of the protests, you're very right about all of that. Conversely, it was noted yesterday that although this was a workers' march, there were a lot of very young people. (I would say that those kids have every right to protest too as neo-liberal economic policies screw them over as much as anyone else).
And yeah, I also saw coverage of the gunfights in the slums, pretty entertaining.
Look at Senator Navarro, who was on the front line trying to negotiate with the cops to let protesters up to La Moneda. He got whacked and bloodied, and he was obviously not acting violently.
If cops were trained well and able to isolate violence, rather than spray down defenseless people carrying signs and huddled in a corner (do look for images of this protest, they are really disturbing), then I think that a majority of peaceful demonstrators could exercise their democratic right.
That 1,000 police officers are dispersed onto the street has nothing to do with quelling violence. It's just a more effective way to violently clamp down. Chile is thinly veiled police state. Check out this write-up on how Felipe Harboe classifies demonstrators as terrorists.
You're right that the cops usually go after people who are holding signs and manifestly "undangerous". I think the reason is mostly that they're afraid of the hardcore "encapuchados" who don't go down so easily.
About Navarro... I suspect the only reason he got the treatment he did is because the police who did it had absolutely no idea who he is.
It's interesting to see the exchange between Comendador and yourself regarding the speed of change (or lack thereof). I agree that change should come faster, but it's so deeply rooted that you can't reinvent society in a generation, even in the best of cases. A good first step would be for the ruling elites to get a real sense of the resentment boiling underneath the surface. Chilean society experiences a tense peace which is only a facade right now, and this in a time where purchasing power has been increasing even for the poor. Their plight is grim one, but they buy better tennis shoes, a new fridge, and try to ignore the growing debt and seek solace in consumption. But wait until the economic miracle experiences a more pronounced hiccup and the bubble pops for more people...
It's not a question of slow progress, it's no progress (pardon the slo-ganizing). But this is how I see it:
Pinochet plowed salt into the earth of representative government, and there is absolutely no willingness on an institutional level to change this. It's that simple. Obviously, this is technically a "democracy" and people do vote, so the government has to put up a facade. I am constantly amazed at how badly it's done, and I speculate two reasons: 1. Bad schooling for the voting majority 2. No choice anyway. If they don't like the concertacion, there's always Pinochet's party, or a more obviously neoliberal candidate like Pinera.
I just don't really see any difference between Pinera and Lagos, nor is Bachelet a departure from Lagos. The only difference is that Pinera won't get the communist vote because he never wrote a book calling for the state to seize institutions, like Lagos did, how times have changed ;-)
As president, Lagos put the country on wheels and carted it out, policies which Bachelet hasn't reversed, and which Pinera will exacerbate if elected, but it's hard to see how he would be any different from Lagos.
So, in the "best of circumstances" social reform might take time. In the "actual circumstances", it will never happen, unless a dramatic change in policy occurs, at which point the realists can chime in and say, well, you know, it takes time. Sure. But you got to begin, and nothing has begun yet. It's just thinly disguised pillaging, a few beads of glass thrown at the people, but nothing substantial.
How bout this: can anyone here beat my argument down and point to a substantial reform in Chile that is raising wages, educating the people, and significantly improving the economic situation, even social welfare for the 80% of Chileans that are currently living on less than $400 per month?
I'm all ears.
La Sra Bachelet seems to be afraid of the pandora's box under her nose. Probably a big mistake not having authorized the protesta, but I agree that for some is like going to the gym ;-)
Chileno, I can tell you one reform who did all you say: it's the "Encaje". If i remember correctly it was implemented when Eyzaguirre was in Hacienda; it consists in a short term capital tax, something from the family of the Tobin tax. It's a unique worldwide tax, which used to be very useful in 98/99 when the asian get hot. When the wave hit south america in 2000/01 many countries felt in default.
Without that, the question of wealth distribution wouldn't be, as probably there would not have been anything to distribute today ;-)
Today el encaje is in stand by, not dead, not alive ; when the FTA with the US was negociated, our far-northern neighbours wanted it if only with the mention RIP on it. ;-)
"Chileno at its best ..."
When you and Christian discuss and interpret significant truths - as in this post and comments exchange, you are doing us all a favour (ha - note correct spelling, eh?). Really enjoyable!
Your remarks about the police and demonstrators in Santiago remind me of the demonstrations/riots in the Alameda on the night of the Inauguration in 1990. We were trapped in the Plaza San Francisco, trying to cross the Alameda to go to a reunion/celebration a few blocks away. We all laughed (nervously) and wondered what the riots were about - after all, the election had been won; the bad guys were toast.
But the carabinieros and the gente were so used to facing each other, getting water sprayed, tossing 'cocktails' and roaring around on motorcycles - that no-one seemed to know how to stop. After 17 years of confrontations, it just doesn't disappear - not then and not now, seemingly.
Progress IS too slow ... especially in a rising economy. And I often wonder how the Edwards family, the Alessandris, the "Papulera" gang and the other 'leading families' can let it go on.
Keep up the good work ...
Lagos - lemme know if you think this is a good article about "encaje", i skimmed it, and will research more later...
article about encaje
Tom - even during the transition Pinochet wanted to send the army back onto the street, and had to be dissuaded by his advisers. Of course, he remained commander-in-chief till '95 (or later?). I think a lot of Chileans see very little difference between yesterday's events and a typical 80's protest. I'd have to ask more people.
My impression is that Chile is a police state. You can't demonstrate peacefully in the street without risking tear gas, billy clubs, imprisonment. I can understand the euphoria of a transition to power, but that only accentuates the tragedy that nearly two decades later the economic tyranny and physical brutality continues.
Police themselves are underpaid and badly trained. For Bachelet not to clamp down ferociously with even 1/10 of the strong language she used again TORONTO police shows that she cares very little for her own police force's professionalism, much less the physical safety of citizens who don't happen to be prize-dog U-20 soccer players.
She herself is guilty of being a LatinAmericanist, N. America/Euro-supremacist by not applying the same standards to her own police force, not enforcing accountability and therefore perpetuating cops' lack of professionalism, and promulgating animosity between cops and citizens.
Typical behavior for someone who gives a shit about how her people are treated, cops included.
Chileno, the article is a good resumé, and points to the actual status of the encaje which is surrounded by blur.
I think it was a ritual sacrifice for the FTA ;-)
Chileno, apparently Bachelet didn't give a shit back in May 2006.
But I digress.
You said:
for the 80% of Chileans that are currently living on less than $400 per month?
Actually, that's $450 a month, using 525 Chilean pesos per 1 U.S. dollar, the amount worth at the time the Casen poll was taken in Nov./Dec 2006.
But most Chileans don't buy stuff at foreign exchange rates, right? That's why it's better to convert prices to "international" dollars, using a purchasing power parity (PPP) conversion factor.
Using PPP prices, according to the 2006 Casen poll, 80% of the poorest Chileans lived with less than $660 a month. That's a household per capita estimate. Considering that the average Chilean household is made of 3.7 people, this makes it at best $2,440 a month per household.
In contrast, in the United States, according to a 2006 government poll, 80% of the poorest Americans lived with less than $8,125 a month per household. If we consider that the average American household is made of 2.57 people, then that makes it at best $3,160 a month per person in a household.
Sources: Census Bureau (1, 2), Casen poll, IMF.
Nick, thanks for your "digression" I had it in the back of my head this whole time. It only goes to show Bachelet's extreme cynicism, that after weeks of national protest that had overwhelming support of the Chileans, and getting extensive coverage in international media, that she would take a stand against police violence. Why then, and not now? Why does "democracy have limits" at this point. What changed? That's what you need to explain, Nick.
On to your next point, thanks for all the resources and your interesting analysis, but to make your argument more complete could you please point to the exact page on the Casen report that shows the per-capita income, in pesos, of 80% of Chileans? I just couldn't find it so point it out to me and then I hope to address your point more in depth. The figure I've been working with is 800,000 pesos for a family of 4, which is 200,000 a head, which is under $400 bucks. Thanks for your help, Nick.
So, for Chile to be on par with the U.S. (not ideal, as the U.S. has the most unequal income distribution in the developed world), and given the size of the respective economies, I calculate that 80% of the poorest Chilean households would have to earn a per capita income of —at best— $945 (in PPP prices), instead of the $660 (PPP) they currently make. That's over a 40% increase!
You can find the Casen income data on page 8 here. I used the amount earned by the richest household (per capita) in the poorest 80% (hint, it's 236,509). For the average number of occupants per household, check page 25, here.
This is a forum about urban development in Chile which you might find ineresting.
I most certainly do not tip my mailman but the truth of the matter is that most of the time it's not me receiving the packages. We order massive amounts of things off of Ebay (since anything tech related here is so damn expensive....perhaps you can explain to me why computers and cameras etc. cost double the price they do in the U.S.) and we have them all shipped to my husband's mom and dad's house because someone is always home there (their nana). So I'll ask them if they're tipping him on the sly and not telling me about it, but I'm pretty sure your mail man just thinks you're a stupid gringo and is trying to aprovechar.
uh, that last comment a reference to a question I left on MC's blog here . Thanks MC, I've become a little skeptical of skepticism because oftentimes certain forms of tipping are totally legit, like you tip your bagger because they don't get paid otherwise, you tip the people who search your bags on the border -- it's all weird and fucked up if you ask me that institutions like this screw their workers, zip up and put it on the customers' tab.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home