


Not so shiny

How an excess of political stability can get in the way of good government

See article

Readers' comments



Foolish me who thought "The Economist" job was to analyse events in world politics and economy. It think you somehow might have misunderstood the concept of analyzing. Somehow, and forgive me if I am wrong it seems as if you are mostly familiar with Latin-American news sources, which are as biased as you seem to expect everyone to be. The reason that The Economist has such a good reputation and is well respected throughout the world is exactly because the choose to keep their eye on the ball, and argue in an fairly balanced way. What happened in the Falkland War is completely irrelevant, and so is British arms sales to Chile. Or is this some confusing attempt on sarcasm, if so I guess the joke is on me. And Shangrila: You talk about corruption like this is a new phenomena in Chile.Doubtless corruption has taken place during Concertacion's rule, but to suggest that Concertacion brought corruption to Chile is not only ignorant, it an attempt to re-write Chilean history. Some might remember the many and grave corruption scandals the dictator himself was involved in, and it is improbable that he was the first. Just because Chile now has a free media, and scandals like these are able to surface does not mean it has not taken place before.


How ungrateful for The Economist to publish this piece of rubbish, criticizing the only friend they had in the Falklands War, and the memory of a naughty dictator who most likely turned the war around in Britain’s favor saving perhaps, billions of Pounds, and possibly thousands of British soldiers’ lives, as well as assisting to exterminate as many brown skinned Argies as possible. Chile is not a perfect country, but it is the closest to Britain’s ideal of what a South American nation should be: a prudent, well maintained and open economy, a large importer of British goods and services, a non-threatening football team, a relatively quiet nation – as Argie style street demostrations and labor unions are as disgusting to The Economist and bankers, as pork might be to a Jew or Muslim, and an exporter of wine and commodities, well within the power of Britain or the market, to control. In the eyes of the British public, Pinochet’s 17 year dictatorship of torture and repression may have been to some, as repressive and nasty as most others, but at least the General assisted Britain in the Falklands, bought large quantities of armamanets from Britain, and was not a communist like Fidel Castro, or even worse, Hugo Chavez. Chile is as great an ally to Britain, as britain is to the United States. Shame on you, The Economist! Your job is to protect Britain’s friends and condemn her enemies by any means possible, not the opposite! I sincerely hope Baronness Thatcher has not read this article. It would break her heart.


You have to live some time in Chile and you will see how corruption has come to this country since the Concertaci�n began to rule the country. Their failure to attack or restrain corruption is not to be blamed to Pinochet era. The blame must be put specially to Ricardo Lago�s presidency.


Many here seems to think that Concertacion single handedly can change the constitution. That is far from the truth. You need a 3/4 majority to change the constitution. That has proved extremely difficult at best, impossible at worst. Todays problem can in many ways be blamed on the conservatives RN and UDI which has fought to protect the Pincohet constitution at any cost, despite its many and grave shortcomings. They have an ability to play a constructive part in Chile's politics despite being in opposition, but rather they have focused on scoring cheap political points in order gain popularity. Concertacion is not without their shortcomings, they are many and serious, accountability and transparency being two of them. That does not however justify opposing reform solely because one is in opposition is the most productive path.

Elena Vidal

I think it's absurd to blame Pinochet for the corruption we see today in Chile. If the current government feels constrained by the Constitution, the Concertacion has had over 15 years to fix that problem. Chile needs a change. Hopefully we'll see that change in the next presidential elections.


Very interesting article, although blaming the Dictator for the cases of corruption is exagerated in my opinion.
I have been to Chile many several times for work and I can only tell you it is an example for the whole latinamerican region (from Mexico to Cape Horn). They have managed to create a great and developed country, considering the region where they are positioned. Some European countries would love to be as they are.
On the other hand as it happens everywhere there has to be anternancy in politics. The so called concertacion and its representatives is a tired and aged group of people. That country needs new faces to continue on its way to be by far the first developed country in latinamerica.
Probably they will realize that next year. As for corruption is concerned I have seen that chileans, not used to it, are tired of that and want the responsibles to pay for it and be jailed.
Besides corruption and boring politicians they are also facing now ilegal inmigration and other issues of developed countries.
Others say chileans got used to strong hands, referring to the long years of Pinochet. If so, then maybe whoever is elected should be stronger as it seems that Bachelet is everything but a strong person capable of running a modern country.
great magazine you have


Chile is a corrupted country.You can find corruption in whatever the field, going from research, education (universities) to politics.You just have a look at the families represented in politics, and you'll see that going from the left to right allways the same families are there represented (since 1920 ...). If the persons in charge of the politics gives a bad example how do you thinks others will react ?As an good example of that, just have a look at the son of the last president Lagos, who, surprisingly is now a candidate to Senator ... and probably one day leader of the father party. It means everything is corrupted. It is simply insane.Is really chile changing ? Well, Yes. Slowly but yes. Is it more or less corrupted than before? I do not think so. In fact it is merely the same, but before you did not have access to this kind of information.The problem is that it is almost impossible to choose for something different, in the political point of view, given that the conservatives here are really leaving in another epoch, around the 50ths ... and are more than corrupted... they invalidate themselves by protecting daily the pinochet constitution ...So you have to choose between congenital corrupted dumbs and congenital more than corrupted ...pinochetits ... You have only a choice. Refuse the old pinochetists ... So it will continues alike this until the old constitution will be changed which will then change the way politics is made here.


Pinochet is in the grave, and he may be even deeper (for sure)Why are you blaming dead people?Please start thinking about blaming somebody else, like:FIRST, overall: The industrial-oligarchy of Mr. Claro, Matte, Lukzic, and Angelini, whom is becoming richer with this "political stability", enhancing income-differences across the country (less than 20% of the population owns more than 80% of the GDP)-Ricardo Lagos, and all the lefty-retards hypnotized by the power, and feed by "Chile's Owners"-A so ambitious right-wing, whom had not been capable of getting into the presidency by democratic means since the 60's. -and overall, blame us "the sleeping Chileans", we are the great retards that allow all thissincerely,An opaque Chilean worker


Great article! As a Chilean journalist educated in the US, it's refreshing to read something balanced for a change from the foreign press about Chile. The New York times of late has published total disinformation and propaganda.
I particularly like the part in the story that says the Concertaci�n has half forgotten its democratic roll as a temporary keeper of power. That is exactly the case, so much so that after Bachelet finished her term the Concertaci�n will have been in power longer than none other than the infamous Pinochet.
In my mind it goes as far as to raise the question of whether a country can really be considered democratic if its democracy (since the return in 1989) has never succeeded in passing the torch. Isn't that the whole point of democracy in the first place. But in this underdeveloped neck of the woods the bar is low enough to allow Chile to rank highly in all the studies on the least corrupt nations in Latam. This article does a fine job in dispelling what has become a stereotype.
In fact, today the official spokesperson for Chile's Presidency said something I find hilarious in defense of this very story. He said Chile has progressed under the Concertaci�n, so much so that in a recent Swiss study the nation ranked 26 out of 55 nations in their level of competitiveness.
Gee, 26 out of 55. That's barely in the top 50%. How competitive. I feel so much better now that I know that!
The only problem I find with this story is, like others on this blog, I feel Pinochet after 20 years of having stepped down cannot be blamed for the bottlenecks in govt. That reminds me of the stereotypes the foreign press still stumbles on when covering Chile.

Mario Ruz

You wrote "Part of the trouble can be traced to Chile's inheritance from the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet, which lasted from 1973 to 1990. It bequeathed a knot of laws which have made it difficult to change the workings of the state and have entrenched them in the constitution"

It is not serious and completely out of context to blame Pinochet for this situation. In my opinion this paragraph should be eliminated from the article. In fact, the Concertaci�n has modified many aspects of the Chilean Constitution and Mr. Lagos himself put his signature in the last version. But the Concertaci�n has never amended or propose to amend the issues you say it need to change in order to improve public finances management.
You should blame instead inept political appointees at key roles in the management of government expenditures.


The analysis is correct in most part.

However to keep blaming Pinochet for the lack of capacity of almost 20 years of democratic governments to manage the country's current wealth is at least biased.

With control of both the senate and lower camera, the Concertacion has had all what is needed to make any kind of reforms. Nevertheless, they have done very little, except create different sorts of structures to grab some money to stay in power.

Anyway, this has been a sort of constant by the Economist, which is strange because it is hard to understand this persistant biased point of view when it comes to Chile.

Many thanks and best regards

Carlos Morales Devia

Being away from my country is when there is still missing in improving many things we have reached a level of efficiency far above the rest of the Paice neighbors. I hope that the problems we have experienced this year be clarified and resolved, I mean the inauguration of a hospital, patients with false and the problem in ministerior of educasi�n regarding funds allocated to bad schools in Santiago.
I ask my government, help us, we profesinales we are studying outside the country, power incerta our society and to working with the management of government.


Carlos Morales Devia


Good article, even though it just scratches the surface of what is happening in Chile for the last decade. The Concertación does not want to improve thinks, since they need to take the money to keep in power, and worst, if Chile evolves into a developed country, the coalition would loose the elections.

On the other hand, to still blame Pinochet’s regime (more than 20 years later) of the problems Chile is facing, is pushing it too far. You could blame his regime for a lot of issues, but he began to turn Chile in a developing nation, starting from scratch, since the country was in a social, political and economic crisis when he took power.


While the institutional framework imposed late in the Pinochet era helped Chile avoid the instability suffered elsewhere in Latin America, it has also imposed a straightjacket on the legislative and electoral processes. Important laws have spent a dozen years or more in congress before being passed (or have yet to be passed). In that sense, Chile progresses like a tree sloth on valium. And it is paying the price.

Alejandro Rogers Bozzolo

I agree. To blame the lost of half a billion dollar on Pinochet is to push things a bit too far.

If the the article is going to do that, it could at least be a little bit more specific and explain which laws made by Pinochet are hindering the modernization of the state.


I agree, I think Chile has moved on in many ways from Pinochet's regime. Perhaps time for a constitutional convention bringing together all facets of the Chilean political spectrum so the country can fulfill its full potential in becoming not only Latin America's only first world nation, but as a beacon to other countries in the region.


...intersting how on every single article about Chile�s problems, The Economist seems to blame them ultimately on Pinochet�s regime, that left government almost 20 years ago! It speaks a lot on the objectivity of the "worlds most authoritative" magazine.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Bitcoin: New money
Free exchange March 17th, 8:18
The Economist on China: Weekly round-up
Analects March 17th, 4:34


Products & events