Fulbright Association
 





Fulbright Association
1100 G Street, N.W.
Suite 525
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 347-5543
Fax: (202) 347-6540

Patricio Aylwin Azocar Speaks to Fulbrighters

I would like to thank the Fulbright Association for the important distinction it has conferred upon me. I receive it as an expression of recognition and appreciation for Chile’s return to its democratic traditions. I understand it as the support for a people that, through love of freedom and in the defense of human dignity, was able to progress peacefully from a dictatorship to a democracy, setting the things that unite us above those that separate us. And I accept it, also, as a stimulus to our efforts to build a future of peace, based on justice and solidarity, for all the peoples of our America.
I come from a country that, within the context of the Latin American nations, had distinguished itself for the stability of its democratic institutions. The ideological polarization that Chile underwent in terms of how to best face the challenges of development, tested and finally broke the tradition of the Constitutional State in which we had taken such pride. Many of those who had dreamed of building a fairer and more egalitarian society went so far as to despise the law, and even democratic liberties, as hindrances that had to be removed in order to bring about the revolution that would lead to their image of the future. And those who feared that the revolution would infringe their rights and dispossess them of their property, went so far as to believe that the best way to save themselves was to suppress freedom. Thus a paradox arose in this country of democratic traditions, where those of us who believed that safeguarding liberty was the essential value were reduced to a minority.
As you know, this drama came about within the context of the cold — or not so cold — war, where, at a global level, there was a confrontation between the strategies of revolutionary subversion and that of the so-called national security doctrine. This confrontation, where the United States was one of the leading contenders, is now a thing of the past; the collapse of communist totalitarianism signaled the triumph of freedom over tyranny. But it is paradoxical that the dictatorships that arose in Latin America "to defend our democracies" from the communist peril, should all have fallen prior to the Berlin Wall. Also significant is the fundamental role that the defense of human rights — so inherent to the political ideals of America — played in demolishing those dictatorships that had systematically trampled them underfoot.
The historical process of the recovery of democracy in Chile, which began exactly ten years ago — with the victory of the "No" votes in the plebiscite held on October 5, 1988 — is what I have ventured to call "the reuniting of the democrats." This victory was possible because those of us who in the past had disagreed like bitter enemies, were capable of understanding and agreeing with each other about the democratic values of freedom, equality and justice, which involve the subordination of all to the law, a respect for our adversaries and the necessary search for basic understandings to achieve the common good. I believe that the transition toward democracy in Chile, with its achievements and its limitations, would have pleased Senator James William Fulbright, because it has involved a sincere effort to combine idealism and realism in an attempt to govern our relations on the basis of the values that he himself advocated: "humanism, tolerance and reconciliation."
We human beings have a tendency to make absolute judgments, to judge whatever happens in terms of black and white. But life is far more complex: as the Gospel says, wheat and chaff go together. The dictatorship that prevailed in my country has given rise to contradictory judgments: abominable to many, an example to others. The truth is that the human rights violations that took place — arbitrary imprisonment and exile, torture, assassination, disappearances — merit nothing but condemnation and are totally without justification; they are unpardonable. But the economic reforms and the rehabilitation, liberalization and opening up of the Chilean economy — without detriment to the criticism that is due for the drastic way in which they were implemented and the high social cost they involved — responded to a reality that needed to be addressed and opened up a new stage of development for the Chilean economy.
Similarly, Chile’s return to democracy was marked by special features. Contrary to what generally occurs when dictatorships start to wear out, that they are brought down by force or collapse under the weight of their own failure, the Chilean dictatorship was vanquished by a plebiscite that the dictatorship itself had established as part of its institutionality. This shaped some of the features of the Chilean transition: the advantage of having been a peaceful process, with no violence or bloodshed, and the drawback of having been limited by that same institutionality, which has only been possible to modify in part through the complex means of constitutional reform. The most ostensible symbol of this limitation was the continued tenure of the former ruler as Commander in Chief of the Army and his subsequent incorporation into the Senate.
These circumstances have had a strong influence on the profound change that has taken place in the national scenario: from an ongoing confrontation that divided Chileans into friends and enemies, there is now a peaceful coexistence where the political debate between the government and the opposition, and the relationship between entrepreneurs and workers, has developed along institutional channels and, on important issues, with a will to arrive at consensus-based solutions. Today Chile lives in democracy and freedom. Human rights are respected; the truth has become known and an effort is being made to do justice with regard to past violations. The country is prospering, with over ten years of high rates of economic growth, progressive international integration and lower inflation and poverty rates. Active social equity policies, in particular in terms of housing, health and education, are improving people s lives.
However, even though the situation of the Chilean people has progressed considerably in almost all sectors, reactions are contradictory. While in successful business and professional circles there is a prevalence of optimism, to the point of what Galbraith called "the culture of satisfaction" — muted only recently by the repercussions of the Asian economic crisis, — signs of discouragement and insecurity are perceived in the middle sectors of the population, in particular with regard to the issues of unemployment, delinquency, sickness and aging. Parallel to this is a declining interest in politics and in voting, especially among young people.
If we look at what I have said about the Chilean situation from a universal perspective, it is clear that it is only a small part of what is going on in the world. Allow me some brief reflections on what, in my view, are some of the great challenges that should be addressed.
Two hundred and twenty-two years ago, when this great Republic was born, your Founding Fathers made the following statement: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles..."
In this century that is about to end, two types of totalitarianism rose up against these values and put them in grave danger: nazism and communism. In the democratic struggle to defend freedom, the United States committed itself with all its immense power. Its involvement was decisive to achieve victory and ensured the reinstatement in the world of what Lincoln called "a government of the people, by the people and for the people."
Up to now, this form of government has been put into effect by the mechanisms of what is known as representative democracy: authority is based on the will of the citizens, who group together according to their interests, aspirations and ideals, and periodically elect their rulers.
The vast scientific and technological progress of the past decades and the changes that have been imposed on the living and working conditions of men and women, the massification and frantic pace of contemporary existence, the speed with which news circulates through the communications media — especially television — and the enormous influence they exert on people’s opinions, together with the egocentrism that characterizes modern consumption-oriented societies, are destroying, or at least weakening, the community bonds (unions, ideologies, even neighborhoods) that used to be the basis for exercising citizenship.
Parallel to this, the globalization that characterizes today’s economics goes beyond or eludes the sovereignty of individual states, and thus the power of their rulers. It is not they, but rather financial groups in control of vast amounts of capital, who decide upon their vertiginous passage through nations, without taking into account the serious crises they might generate. The fate of the people is frequently determined at the Security Exchange rather than in Parliament.
This explains why ordinary men and women may often feel unmotivated to exert their citizenship, either because they cannot tell the difference between the different alternatives, or because they have lost faith in the political classes, or because they feel that the really important issues are not in their power to decide. This happens especially among young people, who consider themselves to be misunderstood or underestimated by the adult world and tend to feel a generational rejection for the established order. But — contrary to what happened in their parents’ generation — they have neither purpose nor any alternative Utopia.
In addition to the two circumstances outlined above which conspire against democratic ideals in these times, another more long-standing one can be mentioned: this is the profound inequalities that separate human beings. As was indicated in the Declaration of the World Summit for Social Development held in Copenhagen in March 1995, "in many societies, both in the developed and developing countries, the gap that separates the rich from the poor has increased... and although some developing countries are experiencing rapid growth, the gap that separates the developed countries from many developing countries is also greater... Over one billion of the world s inhabitants live in extreme poverty and a majority goes hungry daily... Over 120 million people in the world are officially unemployed and many more live in a state of underemployment. There are too many young people, even among those who have followed academic studies, who have scant hopes of finding gainful employment." Let me add that here, in our continent, in the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean, around two hundred million people, almost half the population, live on incomes of less than 60 dollars a month, and of these, over 90 million survive under the poverty line on less than one dollar a day.
These circumstances, which from a moral standpoint are scandalous, represent a serious obstacle to development, an attack against social peace, are incompatible with democracy and pose a dangerous threat to the political stability of nations.
Not even the industrialized nations are free from this tragedy. According to the United Nations Report on Human Development for 1998, there are over 100 million poor people in the OECD countries and at least 37 million of them are unemployed. The same report indicates that even in the United States, the richest nation in the world, poverty affects 16.5% of its population. All these are symptoms, in my opinion worrying symptoms, of a serious process of dehumanization in which men and women are increasingly enslaved by consumer goods, more self-centered, less supportive of others and less capable of loving their fellow men.
I believe that these issues, together with the theme of environmental sustainability which was addressed in the Earth Summit of 1992, would cause William Fulbright special concern if he were among us, because they are issues that affect human coexistence and compromise fundamental ethical values such as justice and solidarity. An inequitable social organization that generates abysmal disparities in its midst and denies a large part of its members access to goods that it offers profusely to others to the point of satiation, is a grave sin against justice.
I know very well that the Summit of the Americas, held in Miami in 1994 and in Santiago this year, represent major steps toward awareness of some of these pressing challenges and the need to face them decisively. But I do not know — and I say this with the respectful frankness that is inherent to true friendship — just how far this great nation is prepared to commit itself and do everything in its power — as Senator Fulbright proved through his actions that he wanted and knew how to do — to ensure that the inspiring declarations and plans of action approved at these Summits are fully met. I pray to God that this will be the case, for the sake of the Americas and for Humanity.
Thank you very much.
These remarks were delivered at a ceremony at the Department of State on October 9, 1998.
See also: