Augusto Pinochet was the tyrannical leader of the military junta which ran Chile from 1973 to 1990. Unusually at the time, but which is becoming standard for juntas or one party states more recently, he adopted economic policies of economic liberalism with the help of the
'Chicago Boys'
. One of the benefits of liberalisation of any system is that its maximises efficiency through self-organisation. Chile under democratic rule has had higher economic performance and decline in poverty than it did under dictatorship.
From here
:
[Chilean] Economic performance in the 17 years of democratic rule has been superior to that under Pinochet. And poverty levels have declined from more than 40 percent in 1990 to below 18 percent in 2005.Democracy is a liberal form of governance that is predicated on maximising liberty for all and minimising arbitrary government. Which is in direct contrast to dictatorship, such as Pinochet's, which quashed political freedom and was purely arbitrary in its relationship with the people under his jurisdiction. As the linked article notes, Pinochet made 'disappeared' a verb. It is not surprising that a system of economic rationalism under a liberal democratic political system is out-performing a similar economy under dictatorship. Any totalitarian form which limits liberty inherently makes the system inefficient because it cuts all avenues of self-organisation. The system becomes inherently flawed. This does not mean that liberal democracy is the 'end of history' other forms of social or political organisation may be found that are more efficient than liberal democracy. It is most likely that communication technology and educational equality will have a distinct bearing on any future system of organisation. Note I could not find any data or graph that had Chilean GDP or growth going back as far as the 1970s or 1960s, so I am taking the article at its word. Caveat's apply. Update Pinochet is dead . cam
