Democracy in Chile would awaken from the recess that was implemented by General Pinochet. Taking a structural approach to Chile's democracy shows a bicameral Congress with a Senate and a House (the Chamber of Deputies). The House is composed of 120 members that are elected from party lists, to a 4 year term with the prospect of re-election (See Table 1.1 below). The Senate has maintained 46 members. Of those 46: 28 are elected, with 8 appointed. The term is for 8 years with the possibility for re-election. The Executive Branch was mentioned in the amendments to the Constitution of 1980. The President serves a 4 year term with the possibility of re-election (as a result of a 1997 amendment).
Table 1.1: The Bicameral Congress of Chile
Branch |
Characteristics |
|
House (Chamber of Deputies)
|
120 members; elected from party lists; 4 year
term with possibility of re-election
|
|
Senate
|
46 members (38 elected, 8 appointed); 8 year term with
possibility of re-election
|
The political landscape is largely tripartite, with Right, Centrist, and Left factions. This cleavage is rooted in the 1800's, and would re-emerge following the reign of Pinochet. Currently the National Renewal Party (formerly the National Party) control the splintered Right which has been embattled following the defeat of Pinochet. The Christian Democrats dominate the centrist faction. The Left is splintered, much like the Right. It is composed of the Communist Party, the Popular Unity Party, the Socialist Party, and the Party for Democracy. The Popular Unity Party was the affiliation of Salvador Allende, and the Socialist Party is the party of current President Ricardo Lagos.
While those parties are dominant in Chile, 14 parties are registered. But the greatest support is for the centrist Christian Democrats. In the 1993 and 1997 elections they were widely supported in elections for both houses of the legislature. (see Table 1.2)
Table 1.2: Political Parties
Faction
Some Parties Associated
Public Support
The electoral system dictates that a party list be presented for an election. In order for a party to win 2 seats in an election, a party must garner twice as much support (66.7%) as the nearest opponent. The Christian Democrats have held the greatest support in elections, largely due to their centrist nature (a faction that Chileans have supported for many years). But the major parties in each faction compose the Concertacion, and this entity has eased the transition to democracy. These parties have controlled the Chamber of Deputies, the Senate, and the Presidency. In this controlling role, the factions have gravitated to the center position, marginalizing the extremes on each end. This makes the election of Ricardo Lagos, a Socialist, less surprising.
The structure remains within the military system, although some amendments to create a working democracy. Without those amendments, the military would have choked the life from the democratic system. Instead the elite groups were willing to compromise within the structure the military created, and also willing to compromise with the military in order to move forward. This is essential because Latin America has an overwhelming history of less compromise/more warfare. The elections that occur, while dominated by the major players in each faction, have experienced participation from all groups. In 1997 at least 9 of the 14 registered parties would have members in the Chamber of Deputies. The Senate is far less open, yet still allows for participation from all groups (independent parties hold seats). These elections have not been questionable, and have featured the exchange of seats from one party to another. This will be tested in the coming years as democracy is further institutionalized.
Important to democracy is this concept of "institutionalization." This can be seen in Chile, with defined party roots that have come from the tripartite system. The Concertacion has created a liberal-pacted model of democracy that features the compromise within elites as they exchange power amongst themselves. A study by Scott Mainwaring and Timothy Scully (found in Peeler), they had classified democratic regimes in Latin America. The result placed Chile at a near optimized level, with democratic roots, and the ability to make operate within the existing political framework to solve problems. This success has hinged upon the success of the moderate left working together with those in the center. The voices of many have been heard inside the political realm as opposed to sabotaging the system from outside of it.
However the structural model has placed great emphasis on the turnover of seats, to display that their is no single voice in the framework. The issue I present is that Chile has experienced elections that are fair, and without great outcry from those inside or out that the election was unfair. If the people (who thus far have been marginalized) participate by actively making choices of who to govern, then the issue is moot. While not voting for an individual, Chileans vote based on Party Platform to determine what party they want to govern. This could be the basis for less turnover. Beyond that, stability is provided by consistently electing parties that are familiar to those in the electorate (knowing what will be done, and what will not be based on platform). The marginalization of the Left and the Right is not as important in this situation considering the history of the Chileans acknowledging a tripartite government, but greatly supporting the center faction.
Possible Outcomes:
John Peeler has outlined three possible paths for Chile: the Left, the Right, and the Center. He has established a collision course for Chile that will be the choice of the electorate in a particular direction that further marginalizes the others. While this is possible, the overwhelming trend to the center should steady Chile. History has shown that Chile has gravitated to centrist policies, but allowed for the inflow of the other extremes. Due to the allowance all parties to participate, this collision course should not occur (unless one argues it already has based on the trend to the center).
It is no surprise that the center has been the focal point. The right and left fought for power during the 1950's and 60's until Allende prevailed. But the backlash by the Right came in the form of a coup. Eventually the right would be replaced with a centrist government aimed more at establishing a working democracy, and creating stability. Another factor is the economy, which has not experienced drastic fluctuations until recently (the Asian Financial Crisis).
A social justice perspective would highlight the human rights violations of the Pinochet regime, and the rights of the disappeared. But Chile has taken one problem at a time, with the establishment of a democracy taking precedence. This progression has shown that democracy has forced roots into the soil of the Chilean landscape.
see the bibliography here
created by Peter Hanson '02