Talk:History of Chile

"Elected with only 36% of the vote and by a plurality of only 36,000 votes, Allende never enjoyed majority support in the Chilean Congress or broad popular support."

If Allende never enjoyed broad popular support, how could he gather 36% of the vote and split the country into two parties? --zeno 03:24 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

Probably "broad" should be changed by "mayoritarian", even if it repeats the word for the congress.--AN

I would like to point that the word "Indians" is utterly ugly. Use "indigenous" or "aborigine." Better yet, explain that the original people inhabiting our country were:

• Inca, Diaguita in the north;
• Mapuche, Picunche and Huilliche people in central zone;
• Ona, Yagan in the south (Called "Patagones" by Hernando de Magallanes.)

I would like to edit this page myself, but I'm not english speaker. --Leus

According to my knowledge of the 11th of September, Salvador Allende shot himself and was not killed during the assault. I would have changed it already but maybe that information is not completely correct. --fsateler

That's right. Allende shot himself with a gun gived to him by Fidel Castro. The version of Allende's murdered in the assault was told by Castro a few days after the coup. The members Allende's personal guard (GAP) and eyewitnesses of the event remained in silence and some chilean left parties embraced the murder version. Nevethernless, one of the witnesses declared allende killed himself but was not taken serious and accused by some allendist as traitor, until in 2003 other surviving witnesses confirmed the suicide version.

Baloo rch 02:15, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Let's keep editing

I see no mention of any dispute on this talk page, so I can't see why any admin would "protect" it from editing. Please explain why you don't want the community to edit the History of Chile article. --Uncle Ed 14:37, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

1970 election results

Article currently says:

...elected by a narrow plurality. Allende won with 36% of the vote against Allesandri's 34% and Tomic's 27%.

My questions are:

• How should we mention the Constitution of Chile and its requirement that the "winner" receive a majority of votes?
• Did Allende really "win" the election, if he did not meet the Constitutional requirement of getting a majority?
• What did the constitution say about resolving election disputes? Specifically, how did it address the situation wherein no candidate gets 50% of the vote?

Pending resolution of these questions, should the article say that Allende was elected president, or what? --Uncle Ed 14:49, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, Allende hadn't absolute majority, so it was not directly elected. Chilan Constituition of 1925 stablished if no candidate had absolute majority (50% + 1 votes) the congress had to elect the president between the two most voted candidates. (on current consitution there is a second round).

In chilean democratic tradition when this situation ocurred the Congress had always voted for the first relative majority. But in this case the national situation was tense - considering that the three parties had excluding goverment programmes. So, the Christian Democrats negociated with the UP a agreement of democratic clauses ("garantías democratic"). Allende's coalition signed the treaty (however they didn't follow it) and the DC voted for Allende in congress. The right coalition abstained.

I've have also a few observations about the 1973-1978. I wish to know the sources of the information about the numbers of prisioneers during the first time of Pinochet's regime. I think it's important to clarify and distingish between the number of people who was imprissioned and the number of people who dissapeared.

The junta relied on the army, the police, the oligarchy, huge foreign corporations, and foreign loans to maintain itself. As a whole, the armed services received large salary increases and new equipment. The oligarchy recovered most of its lost industrial and agricultural holdings, for the junta sold to private buyers most of the industries expropriated by Allende's Popular Unity government. This period saw the expansion of monopolies and widespread speculation.

Also i think it's important to say that the military regime had also a non neglectible support of a important minority of the population.It is true that the upper class was mostly for the regime, but it had also some some support of other parts of chilean society. As example, the result of 1988 plebiscite was 54,7 % for "no" vs 43% for "si".

Baloo rch 02:06, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Some edits. Repression was brutal and large scale, but "the most brutal of Latin America"? Say that to the mothers of May in Argentina that still protest their 30,000 dead in the "Guerra Sucia". Guess someone confused the country, as they put that number here...when 3,000 is closer to the truth. Walter Rauff supervisiong Contreras? Better have a good source for that...Rauff was in Chile, but this is the first time I hear of him helping Contreras. --AstroNomer 05:15, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Timeline

I've brought the timeline in from Cronología de Chile in the Spanish-language Wikipedia. At first I thought I would try to properly merge this material, but I've just translated it. I'm pretty weak on Chilean history before 1970; reading this has only made me more aware of my ignorance. There may even be contradictions between the material I've translated and what was already here. I wouldn't know how to resolve them properly; it looks like others who have worked on this article know more than I. I hope that what I've translated will at least be suggestive of more topics to cover.