CHILE’S UNIQUE POLITICAL HISTORY
_National Life a Growth--Anarchy after Independence--Presidents
Prieto, Bulnes, Montt, Perez--Constitution of 1833--Liberal
Modifications--The Governing Groups--Civil War under
President Balmaceda--His Tragic End--Triumph of his
Policies--Political System of To-day--Government by the
One Hundred Families--Relative Power of the Executive and
the Congress--Election Methods Illustrated--Ecclesiastical
Tendencies--Proposed Parliamentary Reforms--Ministerial
Crises--Party Control._
Chile has a political history that marks an isolated chapter among
the Spanish-American Republics. Its unique and significant feature
is four successive and peaceful presidencies of ten years each.
The phenomenon is worthy of study. The tributes which the Chileans
pay themselves are merited. Their national life has been a growth
and not a series of spasms.
After independence was achieved through O’Higgins in 1818, the
Liberator was sent into exile, because he sought to exert kingly
powers as a dictator under the merest crust of republican forms.
The riot of liberty followed for ten or twelve years with frequent
revolutions, changes of rulers, and unavailing efforts to form a
stable government. The anarchy of license under the mask of popular
institutions reached its height during the period from 1828 to
1833, when the Liberal party--that is, liberal in name--was in
power. Then came the Conservatives, or reactionists. They forced
the adoption of the Constitution of 1833, which remained unchanged
for thirty-seven years. Order and tranquillity was the motto, and
genuine republicanism was choked in order that a government of law
might live.
Under this Constitution the colonial despotism differed only from
that of Spain in that it was exercised by family groups, who
controlled the Executive, rather than by a viceroyal representative
of the distant monarchy. It was easy to suspend the Constitution
and to put the whole country under martial law. The promptness with
which this was done in the emergencies undoubtedly prevented the
series of revolutions that cursed other South American countries.
It was constitutional for the Executive to abrogate the organic law
when the opposition got too active. The party in control under this
Constitution of 1833 always was known as the Conservatives, and the
opposition in a general way as the Liberals. Sometimes a faction
of the Conservatives would split off and attempt a revolution;
sometimes the conservative element was really liberal in character,
but not in name.
From 1833 to 1873 Chile had four presidents, all elected and
reëlected under constitutional forms. These chief magistrates were
Joaquin Prieto, Manuel Bulnes, Manuel Montt, and José Joaquin
Perez. During General Bulnes’ administration an army uprising was
attempted; during that of President Montt a revolution started at
Copiapo in the North. There were also other disturbances. But all
of them were suppressed without long periods of civil dissensions,
and though liberty seemed to be smothered under councils of war
and the absolute suspension of individual rights, it was a hardy
plant and after a brief period would begin to grow again.
Under the Constitution of 1833 the presidential term was five years,
and there was no prohibition against a second term. In this manner
each president reëlected himself and enjoyed a ten years’ tenure. But
he could not have done this if the privileged classes, the family
groups, had not sustained him. They were aggressive in defending
their share in the oligarchy, and their individual independence
they maintained as sturdily as did the English barons who forced
the Magna Charta from King John. With the national development
assured, the country began to chafe under the recognition of the
autocratic power which was vested in the Executive, and to feel that
the growth which would not have been possible without the colonial
despotism under republican form had now reached the full measure.
Consequently the agitation for liberalizing the Constitution began
and was continued persistently instead of intermittently. In the
decade from 1860 to 1870 the Conservative reactionaries were pressed
so vigorously and were on the defensive so constantly that the
harsh features of the Constitution were modified in the spirit if
not in the letter.
During the life of this old parchment and the four Executives who put
it into practice,--for there never was a dictator among them,--Chile
consolidated her domestic interests, inaugurated the building of
railways, and by the navy and other means prepared for the war
which it was felt one day would be had with Peru and Bolivia. In
view of all that was accomplished, it can hardly be said that the
Constitution of 1833 and the power of the one hundred families as
exerted under that instrument, were bad for the country. But a change
was inevitable, and in 1870 the Constitution was reformed in a manner
to bring it within the sphere of modern principles of government
and remove its aggressive antagonism to republican institutions.
Greater independence was conceded to the judicial power, and larger
liberty of action to the municipal authorities, while the electoral
right of the citizen was broadened. The presidential term remained
at five years, but successive elections were prohibited so that
the ten-year tenure could not continue.
Frederico Errazuriz was the first of the Executives to serve under
the amended Constitution. His term was peaceful and progressive,
but was devoted chiefly to preparing for war by ordering the
construction of the armored cruisers which rendered the Chilean navy
so formidable. He was succeeded by Anibal Pinto, who had served in
the cabinet as Minister of War. A financial and economic crisis
supervened during his administration, and in its closing year was
fought the war of the Pacific, with Chile as the antagonist of
allied Bolivia and Peru. Chile’s sweeping victories not only gave
her the nitrate territory which she exacted as war indemnity; it
made her the most aggressive and the most feared Power in South
America.
It is only with the internal political history that I propose to
deal. A Chilean historian naively remarks that it had been the
practice for the outgoing president to intervene in the elections
in order to insure the election of a candidate of his own choosing.
President Pinto announced his purpose of repudiating this practice,
yet he was succeeded by Domingo Santa Maria, who had held the
portfolio of Foreign Relations in his cabinet. President Santa
Maria found himself antagonized by the Conservatives and one wing
of the Liberals. He tried to organize an administration party and
to control the election of senators and deputies in the Congress,
but failed. This was a clear manifestation of the inability of the
Executive to rule without the consent of the families who composed
the various political groups. But the issue between the Executive
and the families was to be forced by a more resolute hand. Its
outcome was dramatic, a tragedy for the nation and a tragedy for
one of the country’s greatest men.
José Manuel Balmaceda was chosen president in 1886, after a sharp
electoral struggle in which the Conservatives and the reactionary
faction of the Liberals opposed him. He sought to conciliate the
latter by calling some of them to his cabinet. He had grand plans
for the development of the nation, and he wanted a united support.
President Balmaceda strengthened the naval and military establishment
out of the nitrate proceeds; but his guiding ambition was to apply
them to public improvements, railways, roads, harbors, and schools.
The Conservative-Liberal fusion thwarted him. It prevailed in the
Congress, and demanded that he name ministers satisfactory to the
majority. This he claimed was in violation of his constitutional
prerogatives. The Congress refused to authorize the taxes and
appropriations necessary for carrying on the government. When for
any reason this was not done at the regular session, the practice
had been to convoke the Congress in extra sessions. President
Balmaceda, wearied with the controversy, abstained from taking this
action. On January 1, 1891, he announced that the appropriations
for the current year would be the same as during the previous year.
Bloody, merciless civil war followed. The Congressionalists
proclaimed that their contest was against Executive usurpation. They
removed to Valparaiso, and took refuge on the warships which had
been prepared for them. They named Captain Jorge Montt as Commander
of the National Squadron. President Balmaceda declared Montt and
the naval commanders who obeyed his orders traitors. The President
organized an army, while the navy sailed for Iquique and seized
the nitrate provinces.
The Congressionalists instituted their provisional government there
to carry on the war against President Balmaceda. They organized
troops which were transported to Valparaiso and defeated the
garrison. A second victory at Placilla and they were in control of
the capital, welcomed by the populace as liberators.
Balmaceda took refuge in the Argentine Legation. Flight across the
Andes was open to him, but he disdained it. He waited calmly till
September 19, the day on which his constitutional term as president
ended, wrote farewell letters to his family and friends, arrayed
himself in black, pointed a revolver at his right temple, discharged
it, and died instantly. His policies live.
I have recalled these swiftly tragic events without any intention
of opening up controverted subjects. My purpose has been to sketch
them only in their relations to the political system of Chile as
it exists to-day, for they influenced it and caused modifications
of the Constitution restrictive of the Executive power.
By the books the form of Chilean government is popular
representative. To the foreign observer the wonder grows that a
system which gives such inordinate power to small groups of families,
who call themselves political parties, and which binds the Executive
hand and foot, can prove satisfactory. But it suits Chile, or has
suited her, and the country progresses. That is the conclusive
answer. If Chile chooses to make a strait-jacket for herself, that
is her own concern, and if in that strait-jacket she expands and
develops a progressive national life she may be permitted to take
her own way and her own time for freeing herself.
But what of the governing classes? Who compose them? The Chilean
professional man or merchant or government official will tell you,
as he told me, that there are no class distinctions, and at the
same time will take pride in drawing himself and his fellows far
apart from the masses. It has been said that a hundred families have
ruled Chile for seventy-five years. The numeral might be doubled or
trebled, but the truth would not be changed. The landed interests,
the commercial community, and the Church have ruled the country,
and it must be said that they have ruled well. They may accuse
one another of being false to their trusteeship, but the foreign
observer is not impressed with this charge. All of them have worked
together to make Chile the powerful and aggressive little nation
that she is, and have secured her the respect that the rest of
South America has given her. But they have taken all the benefits
for themselves,--the honors and emoluments of public office, the
opportunities for wealth that came from the nitrate fields, the
chances for careers that have been afforded by the army and the
navy. It may almost be said that the army and navy exist for the
employment of the one hundred families.
Chile herself is not a country of great private fortunes. One or two
families have been enriched by mines, a half-dozen by banking and
commercial development, a larger number by the nitrates. But when
it is all said, the Chilean hundred families are kin of moderate
means. Their main sources of income are from their landed estates.
These land-owners do not tax themselves heavily. As in the majority
of countries of Spanish America, the government imposts are laid on
the revenue from the land and not on the land itself. The landed
proprietors contrive that these imposts shall be light.
The existing regimen, as studied on paper, is almost a complete
reversal of the regimen under which for nearly half a century Chilean
nationality was developed and the little ribbon of a republic
was consolidated and made strong. The old form was a colonial
despotism, with monarchical powers for the Executive. The present
system is congressional despotism without republican powers for
the Executive, but under both forms the one hundred families have
ruled. The president is selected by electors chosen in the provinces
through direct suffrage, since there is no such thing as provincial
legislatures.
Intense jealousy of the power of the Executive is shown. Politically
the president of Chile is a cipher, though he has vast power
in relation to public contracts. But he can rule only as the
instrument of the Congress. Not only does the ministerial system
prevail in its most extreme form, so that it is not unusual for the
cabinet to be changed half a dozen times within a short period, as
happened in 1903 and 1904, but a further limitation is put on the
president’s authority by the Council of State. He governs through
this body, which is composed of eleven members, the majority of
whom are selected by the Congress, each branch naming three. The
remaining five can be chosen by the president only from designated
functionaries, one of them always being the Archbishop. Thus it
cannot be said that there are three coördinate powers, legislative,
executive, and judicial, in the Chilean government.
In operation there is no equilibrium of executive and legislative
powers, because Chile is governed, ruled or misruled, by the
legislative branch. The authority of the Congress is very extensive,
and it never sleeps on its rights. Usually it keeps the president
awake seeing how they can be respected and executive policies at
the same time be carried out. An election for Congress is not
greatly different from a similar event in the United States.
The parties nominate their candidates, usually after a caucus.
Minority representation obtains. Electioneering is done through the
newspapers, through meetings, and through placards. The placards
cut a very extensive figure. The manifestoes of the candidates,
their allocutions and appeals to the voters, are printed in type
so big that the one-eyed man must see and stop to read.
Election methods in many respects are patterned after the United
States, and it is considered fair politics for the party which
gets control of the voting machinery to use its advantage without
particular regard for the will of the voters as manifested in
the ballots. An example of this was given me which showed that
Chilean politicians have a fine sense of humor,--one which would be
appreciated by Tammany or by Philadelphia. Mr. George Asta-Barragua,
who related the incident, had lived in Washington when his father
was minister to the United States, and could enjoy the pleasantries
of politics in either country.
The contest was very bitter between two candidates who might be
disguised as Lopez and Martinez, those names being as common as
Smith and Jones. The friends of Martinez secured a majority in the
election board, but Lopez had the privilege of naming the minority
member, one Rodriguez. The ballots deposited were evenly distributed.
The majority of the board calmly counted all of them for Martinez.
Rodriguez protested, but without avail. The Martinez faction had
determined that in this precinct there should not be one vote for
Lopez. After numerous energetic and violent protests, Rodriguez saw
that the game was against him, and only varied the proceedings by
violent protests in the nature of shaking his fist under the noses
of his co-judges. Finally he contented himself with shrugging his
shoulders, and the proceedings went on good-naturedly. His co-judges
joked him, and he jested with them.
The last thing to be done was for the judges themselves to cast
their ballots. Then Rodriguez made his final stand and delivered a
little speech to the other judges. It was in substance as follows:
“Gentlemen, I recognize that you are two against one. I won’t say
that we wouldn’t have done the same if we had been two against one.
But now that the farce is nearly over, I have one request to make,
which as honorable gentlemen you surely will grant. It would be
scandalous if, with myself as the representative of Lopez, the word
was circulated that I did not vote for him. Therefore my request,
honorable associates, is that I may cast my ballot and have it
counted for Lopez.”
His honorable associates conceded that it was his duty to cast
his ballot. He did it with the name LOPEZ in great black letters.
His honorable associates calmly counted the ballot for Martinez.
Rodriguez protested energetically. Colleague No. 1 picked up the
ballot, remarking, “There is no vote here for Lopez,” Then he held it
up and said to Colleague No. 2, “Do you see anything of the name of
Lopez here?” Colleague No. 2 slowly spelled out, “M-A-R-T-I-N-E-Z.”
Rodriguez then gave it up, and the vote of the precinct as returned
showed, for Martinez, 267; for Lopez, 0.
I was assured that this was an actual occurrence, and it certainly
was a fine exhibition of campaign humor.
The Roman Catholic Church is a part of the political system, and
is a political power in Chile, although there is no discrimination
against Protestant forms of worship. In 1813, during the struggle
for independence, Bishop Villadres preached in the name of God
war against the patriots. Bishop Andreu preached war against the
King’s soldiers. Thus the Church was not arrayed wholly against the
patriots. They recognized it in the Constitution, and it receives
State aid.
While the influence of the hierarchy in the main has been
reactionary, the ecclesiastical authorities have been politic enough
not to antagonize the ruling family groups. When they have sought
to do so, they have been worsted.
The Chilean government is measurably independent of ecclesiastical
dictation. It always has insisted on its right to nominate the
Archbishop, and when Rome has been unwilling to recognize this
nomination the Archbishopric has remained vacant. That was the
condition for several years previous to Balmaceda’s election as
president. Then a compromise was effected by the Vatican recognizing
the choice of the administration. A Papal legate is maintained at
Santiago, and the intrigues and manœuvres to give him precedence have
caused unpleasantness in the Diplomatic Corps. Of late years the
Church influence has been decidedly reactionary. This was accentuated
on the death of Pope Leo, when the Bishop took occasion to preach
a political sermon, aimed not only at the Italian government but
at Liberal governments everywhere. The leading public men resented
this reactionary tendency. When the priests expelled from France
sought an asylum in Chile, they were frigidly received.
The efforts to reform the political system relate both to the
executive and to the legislative branches. One group wants the
vice-president chosen, as in the United States, to succeed to the
Executive functions on the death or incapacity of the president.
Under the present form there is no elected vice-president. That
functionary is the Minister of the Interior, and usually he is a
member of the House or of the Senate. When the president desires to
forego temporarily the responsibilities of office or becomes ill, he
can withdraw and turn the administration over to the vice-president.
The latter official during the interim exercises all the powers
of the chief magistrate, but in case of the president’s death a
new Executive is chosen to fill out the term. The agitation for an
elective vice-president is not very pronounced, though it may be
made a part of the programme of one or the other of the political
groups.
The movement for a change with regard to the Congress is more
definite. One phase of it relates to the form. Some want to dispense
with the formality which takes place at the opening of Congress
when the president is escorted to the hall of the Sessions by the
troops, is attended by the cabinet, and delivers his message in
person in the presence of the Diplomatic Corps and of distinguished
officials. It is not a live question. I attended an opening session
in company with Minister Wilson, and thought that the message
acquired dignity through its ceremonial delivery.
The vital reform which many Chilean public men think necessary
in order that national policies may be carried forward and the
government placed in harmony with popular sentiment, is a complete
overturning of the present parliamentary system, with its frequent
and ridiculous ministerial crises, the consequent cabinet changes,
and the interruptions in the Executive’s policy. The theory of
parliamentary government is carried to an extreme which hardly
could be conceived of in England. It would make a Frenchman envious
of the ease with which ministries can be upset and new ministries
set up to be overthrown in their turn.[12] It is a panorama of
lightning parliamentary changes. The consequence of the present
system is to continue the power of the family groups who call
themselves by various names and who may or may not reflect distinct
political tendencies. All of them must be represented in the cabinet.
Occasionally by means of a coalition or a fusion the Executive may
secure something like a political majority, but it does not hold,
because the elements composing it have too many selfish interests
and too many individual ambitions to gratify. Sometimes, too, the
House may be satisfied with the cabinet, while the Senate refuses
to accept it. That was the condition in the Fall of 1904, when the
Liberal Alliance was the power behind the ministries.
12 The Chilean correspondent of a London newspaper gave this
illustration: “Valparaiso, February 11. The changes effected in the
composition of the Chilean Ministry, and especially the Finance
Department, have at times been so frequent that not very long ago
both the British and the United States Ministers informed the
President that for the future they would be unable to recognize
any change. They complained, not without sufficient reason, that
no sooner had they entered into arrangements with one Minister of
Finance than these had to be suspended and commenced _de novo_ with
his successor, who, again, at the final stages, referred the foreign
representatives to his successor at the Treasury Department.”
The leading men who are agitating for a reform are radical in their
programme, for they want Chile to adopt the practice of the United
States, and nothing can be more opposite than our own system and
that which now obtains in Chile. These reformers would have the
Executive sustained by a political party in the Congress; but
even when he may not have a partisan majority back of him, they
would have his administration, chosen as it is for five years,
assured the voting of the necessary appropriations and the power
to continue the policy on which he was elected. That, they argue,
would give continued internal tranquillity and strength abroad.
This was lacking to Balmaceda, and its lack caused him to defy the
Congress and go outside the Constitution. A long time must pass
before Chilean public sentiment can be educated up to the point
where a hostile partisan majority in the Congress will not dare to
refuse to vote the ordinary appropriations of the government. When
that point is reached, there will be simply two political parties
instead of half a dozen groups centring around individuals.
When I was in Chile in 1903, there were four parties who were
recognized, and these were split into so many sections that it
was hard to distinguish them. The parties were the Liberals, the
Radicals, the Conservatives, and the Social Democrats, or Populists.
But the Liberal party was composed of middle-of-the-road Liberals,
moderate Liberals, and liberal Democrats, while the Conservatives
were divided into regular Conservatives and clerical Conservatives,
with a shading off into minor groups. The general tendencies were
clear, and an alignment was forming between Liberals of all shades
in order to combat the Conservatives. The growth of the Liberals is
a revival of the Balmaceda policies. Their success means reforms
in the parliamentary system, more freedom for the Executive, and
perhaps a broader foreign policy including the frank recognition
of the influence on the Panama Canal on all the Pacific coast of
South America. It is generally assumed that no president can now
be elected in Chile who is not satisfactory to the Balmacedists.
President Jerman Riesco, who was chosen in 1901, gave a liberal
and temperate administration.
But these tentative suggestions of reform in the political system,
and even the tendencies in regard to public policies are only surface
ebullitions if they are studied without an insight into the deeper
social and economic conditions, for Chile has social and economic
questions of a more pronounced character than any other country in
South America. I defer their analysis for another chapter.