The new President of Chile, Ricardo Lagos, has taken a commendable stand on former dictator Augusto Pinochet. Mr Lagos, who was forced into exile during Pinochet’s rule, says it is up to the courts to decide what is to be done.
Pinochet led a military coup against the elected government of Salvador Allende in 1973. In his 17-year rule his regime was responsible for the kidnap, torture and murder of at least 3000 Chileans. Pinochet has stated that he is not guilty even if those under him committed crimes. He was made a senator for life which granted him immunity from prosecution when Chile moved to democratic rule.
The questions now are whether a Chilean court can remove that immunity and if it can whether Pinochet is medically fit to be tried and if he can be linked to kidnap, death and torture that was committed by people in authority under his regime.
The extent of the human suffering inflicted by the Pinochet regime would make it understandable if the new Lagos Government acted with vengeance. But it would not be excusable. Mr Lagos’s position that it is a matter for the courts without any interference from the Government. He is determined to show that the rule of law must triumph over the arbitrary exercise of power.
The question of what to do with the people who lead repressive regimes is a vexed one. Sometimes the opposition in a country strikes a bargain. It says to the repressers, “”The game is up, you are going to be removed eventually even if by violent revolution. Why not give up early and peacefully and allow a transfer of power to a democratic regime in return for immunity.” This approach saves on-going bloodshed. It happened in many countries in South America and in South Africa. In other countries, like Indonesia, there was a transfer of power without grants of immunity.
The difference is instructive. In Indonesia, the fear by some in the military that they might be tried for human rights offences makes them take a threatening role over the elected government. In places where some form of immunity has been granted, the threat to the democratic government has been lessened.
It has given rise to some of the most difficult ethical problems of the century. Should opposition people bargain with the leaders of an evil regime to rid a nation of that regime more quickly? Or should they take a stand of high principle which would lock the repressive regime into fighting to the end with all the human misery that would inflict in the meantime? Further, having bargained with a repressive regime, should people in opposition be held to the bargain? If not, what example does it give to repressive regimes elsewhere? Will they not hang on to the end if it is seen that immunity is worthless? And if they hang on, will not that cause more suffering.
The late 20th century saw a large number of transitions to democracy. Only in a few cases were the repressive former leaders brought to justice, and then only in a summary way, as in Romania.
The significance of Mr Lagos’s stand is that it reveals the ultimate triumph of democracy and the rule of law. He will be giving to Pinochet something that the Pinochet regime never gave to its victims: the benefit of an open and fair hearing. Significantly, that hearing will canvass the validity of the grant of immunity.
In the end, Chile might be better off adopting the South African model. In South Africa the perpetrators of politically motivated crime were granted immunity by the new regime in return for confession. That replaces the earlier tainted immunity and victims at least get acknowledgment of crimes done, even if they do not get vengeance.