Dictators in the Dock

NEW YORK: Britain's law lords will begin to decide this week (after botching the first attempt) whether General Augusto Pinochet should continue to be detained for possible extradition to Spain. The case has inspired many debates over amnesties such as that which Pinochet decreed for himself decades ago.

Some commentators, ranging from the liberal Polish ex-dissident Adam Michnik to ultra-conservative US Senator Jesse Helms, oppose prosecuting Pinochet on the ground that, unless such dictators are allowed to retire with their impunity intact, it will be impossible to persuade them to relinquish power.

In Pinochet’s case, there is an ahistorical aspect to this argument. Pinochet did not abdicate voluntarily. He had no choice. After seizing power in September 1973, torturing and murdering thousands in the process of consolidating his rule, Pinochet needed to establish his legitimacy, domestically and internationally. So the dictator promulgated a Constitution in 1980 which required that his continuation as President be subject to a plebiscite eight years later. That plebiscite was scheduled for October 5, 1988, fifteen years after Pinochet’s coup.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To continue reading, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.


By proceeding, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions.

Log in


Cookies and Privacy

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. To find out more, read our updated cookie policy and privacy policy.