Gobierno de Chile

September 11, 1973 coincided with my first day of classes at Harvard and I remember it as if it were yesterday. I arrived at class and a professor told me that there had been a coup d’état in Chile. I went back to my student lodgings and could not believe what I was seeing on the television: Chilean Air Force planes bombing La Moneda Palace, tanks in the streets, the military patrolling the streets with machine guns. I thought that my country had lost its mind and I sensed immediately that restoring democracy would a long, difficult and challenging process,” President Piñera said.

In a twist of fate, 40 years later it would be his turn to commemorate this event, but this time from inside the Palace and as the first center-right President since the return to democracy. And his plan is to remember the coup d’état as “an historic and very significant moment for our country,” through what he describes as a “sober, republican act.”

“It is wrong to forget, ignore or try to sweep under the carpet all the mistakes that were made. But the question is why should we remember? To make the same mistakes again that led to the destruction of democracy, or on the contrary, to learn from these mistakes so as to ensure we never repeat them. And this remains to be seen, because I can see that there are some people who want to take the first option and others who want to take the second.”

In the context of this commemoration, does the Right have to ask for forgiveness as Senator Hernán Larraín did?

Forgiveness is a personal issue. If someone has sins, culpability, be they actions or omissions, if that person is repentant and feels that they need to ask for forgiveness, then they should. But I don’t think there is any logic in starting to demand acts of forgiveness from one another. Forgiveness is a free and individual act, that is borne from the initiative and conscience of each individual and therefore I respect those who ask for forgiveness and those who feel it is not necessary to apologize. But what is very important is that on this anniversary we understand that the breakdown of democracy, the great failure of a generation, was not a sudden death, but was in fact the foreseeable – though not inevitable – outcome of the slow and systematic demise of our democracy, our civic fellowship, our republican values and our rule of law. Little by little, everybody contributed to the weakening of democracy and the rule of law…

¿Do you mean to say that the military are not the only ones to blame? That the responsibility is shared?

Ultimately, it is not that the military went mad on September 11 and suddenly decided to storm La Moneda Palace. It is evident that the process had been accumulating because the Unidad Popular government tried to establish a society inspired by the values of Marxist Socialism which did not represent the vast majority of Chileans. As a result, good sense began to be replaced by overriding passions, respect yielded to intolerance; dialogue yielded to violence; civic fellowship yielded to class hatred. All of this had been accumulating since the 1960s, reaching its climax in the 1970s and it culminated with the coup d’état. Some started using violence as a legitimate means of fighting and expressed their contempt for democracy. But this does not mean that the historical circumstances, prior to the coup d’état, justify in any way what happened afterwards and in particular, the severe, repeated and unacceptable violations of human rights.

This is why some sectors are asking for a gesture from those who supported Pinochet’s government, including the center-right presidential candidate.

Without question, the military government had some very dark moments, such as the repeated, permanent and systematic violations of human rights by agents of the State or the loss of freedom and suppression of fundamental rights. But it also had its moments of light, such as its program to modernize our society, our economy and institutions, opening Chile to foreign trade, the incorporation of the social market economy and the opportunities for individual enterprise. All of this was positive and ahead of its time. But if we are looking for who was responsible for what happened during the military government, particularly for the violation of human rights and dignity, there are of course many culprits. For a start, the highest authorities of the military government, who knew or should have known what was happening. But it was not just them. There were many passive accomplices: people who knew and did nothing or who didn’t want to know and therefore also did nothing. There were also judges who allowed themselves to be subjugated and who turned down amparo remedy petitions that would have saved so many lives. There were also journalists, who wrote headlines knowing that what they were printing was not the truth.

Are there any passive accomplices working in your government?

In this government there are no ministers nor have there ever been any ministers who were ministers in the military government.

But authorities, yes.

Yes, but I want to make this very clear: the condition of having worked in the military government, in good faith, with good will and in the best interests of Chile, does not disqualify or bar anyone from continuing to exercise positions of public service. I do not believe that on judgment day, those who supported the military government and their opponents will be stood on opposite sides. But I do believe that those who had maximum responsibility in the military government knew or should have known and therefore, should have prevented what happened in terms of human rights and abuses.

Do you not feel that a commemorative act like the one you are organizing puts your presidential candidate in a difficult position?

The act is a commemoration, to recognize that September 11 happened and that the country cannot ignore it. And as President it falls to me to be President of all Chileans at a time when we are remembering this 40^th anniversary. This is a sober, republican act, where the President can make an honest, sincere and profound reflection on what happened and why. Not to reopen wounds and rekindle hatreds and passions, on the contrary: to learn from what happened so as to never again repeat the same mistakes. Evidently, I will also reflect on what happened after S-11 and the many mistakes that were made. From this perspective, we will be inviting current and former authorities.

And also the presidential candidates?

We are considering it.

Former President Bachelet?

Possibly, yes. I hope everyone comes.

Having voted “No” in the 1988 plebiscite is considered by analysts as one of the elements that helped position you as a presidential candidate. Do you consider it to be a backward step that your sector is now represented by the daughter of one of the members of the Military Junta and that she supported the “Yes” campaign?

No.

But she doesn’t appear to be the best card for winning the center vote.

First of all, Evelyn Matthei is her own person, with her values, principles and actions, for which she must assume responsibility. There is no reason why she should be held responsible for what her father, uncles or grandparents did or didn’t do. But it is true, I was a firm opponent of the Unidad Popular government, because I believed that in terms of doctrine, it went against essential values, such as human liberty and dignity. I also opposed the military government from day one because I did not like the way in which it started.  Not to mention when we started to discover the human rights abuses. So not only did I vote No in 1988. I voted No in 1978 and in 1980. However, one thing is re-establishing democracy, which was my greatest motivation, and another very different thing is what I wanted for the future of my country. And so when Chile finally returned to democracy, I took the path that everyone knows about.

Which included working with those who supported the Yes.

Almost everyone in the center-right leaned towards voting Yes at that time. I argued a lot about this, because I felt it was a grave error. Extending the military period for another eight years was a case of not understanding that the country was ready and needed to return to democracy in the same way we need air to breathe. But we all have the right to make mistakes. I don’t mind if people make mistakes; what worries me is when people are given more information and time to reason, and continue making the same mistakes. I am absolutely convinced that the vast majority of the center-right, if they could go back in time, would do everything they could to recover democracy by the shortest and most direct route possible, which at that time was by voting No.

So there shouldn’t be any problem in admitting the mistake.

Many have already done so.

I’m referring to the presidential candidate.

I don’t know whether Evelyn Matthei has said it or not. This week she said something else: that she was 20 years old in 1973 and had nothing to apologize for. The truth is a little deceptive, because we are not only talking about that moment but also about everything that happened afterwards. But I am under the impression, and you can ask her, that if it were possible, knowing everything we now know, the vast majority of our sector would be on the side of the No vote.

Interview published in La Tercera