Chilean Intellectual Debate: Dictatorship Legacy vs. Social Uprising Responsibility
Sociologist Eugenio Tironi argues that the Chilean right, and specifically the Institute of Studies of Society (IES), must confront the legacy of the dictatorship and human rights violations. He posits that this obligation to respond is inherited, as President Sebastián Piñera's efforts to distance himself from the Pinochet era were isolated personal endeavors. Tironi suggests that for his generation, the defining issue is the compressed and violent modernization of Chile, epitomized by the 2019 social uprising. He contends that blaming the new left or the center-left for the 2019 events is misguided if the uprising represents the culmination of modernization's contradictions.
The author of the article criticizes Tironi's logical inconsistency, noting that Tironi judges the dictatorship based on agency and political responsibility but frames the social uprising as a natural, uncontrollable 'tsunami' devoid of human agency. The author insists that political actors should be held accountable for their actions, regardless of whether they are associated with the dictatorship or the uprising. While acknowledging the relevance of the dictatorship's legacy, the author clarifies that for their generation, the existential mark is the accelerated modernization of Chile and its inherent contradictions, posing the question of why such successful modernization led to brutal dissent.
Furthermore, the author disputes Tironi's assessment of Sebastián Piñera as a lone actor in attempting to create a center-right movement independent of Pinochet's influence. The author asserts that numerous diverse actors and institutions supported this effort, many of whom defended democracy during and after the 2019 uprising against both right-wing elements advocating military solutions and left-wing factions celebrating the unrest for revolutionary purposes, while some key figures in restoring democracy remained silent or joined the fray.
This intellectual exchange highlights a recurring tension in post-authoritarian societies: how to reconcile historical accountability for past state violence with the analysis of contemporary social unrest. The debate centers on whether to attribute responsibility to specific actors or to systemic, structural forces, particularly concerning the legacy of the Pinochet dictatorship and the 2019 social uprising. The differing perspectives reflect a broader challenge in Chile and elsewhere regarding the inheritance of historical trauma and the interpretation of collective action. As societies evolve, understanding the interplay between historical legacies, modernization processes, and citizen mobilization remains crucial for navigating political and social futures, especially in an era where digital platforms can amplify both dissent and the demand for accountability across generations.
AI-generated to prompt reflection — not editorial opinion, not advice, not a statement of fact. How this works.