Chileans Said “No” to Pinochet

[polly7]

By Saul Landau

Thursday, March 21, 2013

The new film, “No”, takes place in Chile in 1988 as the nation faced a plebiscite -- a vote of all citizens -- on whether to keep General Augusto Pinochet in power, or not. The Army commander who seized power after a 1973 military coup against elected President Salvador Allende had ruled for more years than Hitler, and had become an old man who gained international notoriety by assassinating, disappearing,” torturing, and sending opponents into exile. But the foreign investors praised his embrace of Chicago Boys economics, a supposedly free market economy whereby proletarios (proletarians) could evolve into proprietarios (property owners), which in practice meant that capitalists could buy Chile’s forests and convert them into chopsticks and tooth picks.

After 15 years of military dictatorship and unbridled capitalism, Chileans got to vote to allow Pinochet to continue his rule. It was “Yes” or “No” -- open the political game to a genuine choice. The film focuses on the “No,” campaign waged by the anti-Pinochet forces. To win voters, Chilean TV offered each side a series of 15 minute daily programs.

The old Chilean lefties, who directed the campaign, had no experience in selling their side of the story on television; so they choose René Saavedra (Gael Garcia Bernal), a talented ad man, to design the campaign to convince the Chilean majority to reject Pinochet.

Rene designs the commercials in the style he perfected through making soft drink commercials and soap opera promotions, to use the zeal shown by actors pitching a fizzy drink to deliver a message for a new, happier Chile. But Rene must spar with left-wing ideologues about the contents of the message. All recognize the fact that Pinochet had to concede to the referendum because of strong foreign pressure to legitimize a government that was inherently illegitimate—Pinochet’s coup and post-coup brutality was directed against an elected government, and the Chilean population that supported it.

Full Article: http://www.zcommunications.org/chileans-said-no-to-pinochet-by-saul-landau

[idwiyo]

1. K&R

[sabrina 1]

2. But the US said 'yes' and millions of people suffered as a result.

All in the cause of failed, cruel neo-liberal, Milton Friedman-style 'Capitalism'. Those 'policies' have left a trail of destruction across the planet now finally coming to the West.

[Demeter]

3. And still go on today!

Having lost most of Latin America (except Colombia), Friedmanites are now busy losing the Middle East and Africa....and trashing the US with their Ugly Americanisms.

[VenezuelanExpat]

5. Actually, the US said "no" as well, thereby saving thousands of lives

When Pinochet lost the referendum, he thought about going for violence but the US informed him he would be making a new enemy.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/02/23/report-chiles-pinochet-wanted-anti-vote-violence/1941493/

Yeah, the US helped destabalize Allende, but US meddling has not been uniformly against the left in South America. It's not a simple black and white (though I do think US should generally not be so involved in South America as it is).

[sabrina 1]

6. The US helped put that brutal, sick man in power in a country where they had no business

interfering. After that, they are responsible for everything he did. Too late, after you back the murder of a leader of a country that is none of your business and back the installation of someone like Pinochet, encourage his suppression of those who try to stop him, it is way, way too late to try to reign him. There were far too many victims, including Allende, by that time. Sorry, not buying that the US did not try to suppress the Left, they are STILL doing it in that region of the world.

[sabrina 1]

7. Just want to add, that the US and that other Western former Empire, Britain, protected Pinochet

from prosecution. It must be nice to have such powerful friends when you are a mass murderer. Funny they never rush to the defense of people like say, Chavez though, quite the contrary. I do not recall Chavez slaughtering people so it would have been encouraging to hear some condemnation from the US Government when those who tried to remove him power were identified. But then, I suppose when you are complicit in a crime, it is hard to come out and pretend to condemn it.

The US will always favor a right wing dictator over a duly elected left-leaning leader in any country where the resources are of interest to them.

[Judi Lynn]

9. Why not suggest a name or two of the leftists the U.S. has backed in a power grab?

Have never heard this had happened, ever.

In the depths of ignorance, it was possible to imagine the reason for the conclusions we reached regarding the U.S. removal of Latin American and Caribbean leftist leaders and replacement with bloody, sadistic, and US-subservient right-wing tyrants was because that was exactly what had happened consistently.

We could really use that missing enlightenment regarding the leftist leaders whom the U.S. has brought to power and protected.

You'd be doing us a favor.

[Catherina]

4. Thanks Polly. I'd like to see this

"actors pitching a fizzy drink to deliver a message for a new, happier Chile"

[Judi Lynn]

8. Great seeing that all-too-true illustration. What a hideous crime against India's people.

(What Coke has done in Colombia against Colombians should have been prosecuted so long, long, long ago, before so many people died. What a shame the country sold them out for some easy money for the oligarchs.)

[Judi Lynn]

10. Great getting Saul Landau's evaluation of this film. He's terrific. Thanks. n/t