On the eve of a half-century since its founding, a moment from Chile’s coup era resurfaced as the president opened an artistic installation in the Palacio de la Moneda, a building once struck by bombs. A Democrat’s March sits in the heart of Santiago, on Morandé 80, the narrow street that leads to the Executive Headquarters. The exhibit presents the shoes worn by a former president on September 11, 1973, inviting visitors to imagine an alternate history within these walls—an implication that the other path might have been taken by the socialist leader who faced a stark choice rather than signing a compromised constitution demanded by the military conspirators.
In a public statement, a family member reflected on a long, principled journey militant in social justice, emphasizing the need to keep memory alive. The speaker described the desire to tell a story fifty years after the coup, noting how difficult it was and asserting that the truth about the government’s meaning should be explained so that the brutality of that era never repeats.
A dignified tribute filled the moment as the guests gathered at Morandé 80, including high officials and regional leaders. The body of the former leader was carried to the palace wrapped in a blanket, while the surrounding city faced the persistent challenges the nation has confronted for decades. The ceremony drew many Latin American presidents and former leaders, alongside international figures, while a former conservative leader who helped shape the post-dictatorship political landscape signed a pledge in Santiago to vow never to relive the September 11 tragedy, choosing not to participate in the day’s events.
Among the attendees were heirs of those who supported the coup and stood as political backers, many of whom chose not to assume the posture of the victims or those who endured during the dictatorship. A coalition later signed a document that avoided the explicit term “coup,” replacing it with the phrase “institutional collapse.” The pledge reaffirmed a commitment to human rights and democracy, while condemning violence as a political tool.
far right
A faction aligned with the Pinochet era, influential in earlier constitutional processes, distanced itself from the anniversary. This group spoke against any public inference of damage at a notable grave site from the preceding week. The grave in question belonged to a key architect of the constitution enacted under the military regime. Critics suggested that the event might have been a moment to stand in defense of peaceful rest rather than engage in public confrontation. The president, however, publicly disputed such claims and spoke against instances of violence that occurred near the palace around the same time.
Some observers noted that the broader public discourse included accusations from right-leaning quarters that relied on a harsh assessment of past actions, challenging the legitimacy of the current leadership. Others argued that this stance impeded national mourning and hindered a broader, inclusive commemorative effort.
In opposition to these views, the center-right bloc pressed for accountability through legal and institutional means, arguing that the roots of the crisis lay in the early 1970s and urging a measured pursuit of justice and reparations while attributing responsibility to the left for the broader turmoil.
critics
A number of political analysts and university voices criticized the lingering stance of the right. They lamented a missed opportunity for a mature, liberal right to emerge, suggesting that a fixation on historical trauma prevented a constructive break from the dictatorship era. Critics questioned how some figures could condemn a coup morally after fifty years, challenging the consistency of such positions.
The conversation extended into digital spaces as well. The ExAnte portal reported tens of thousands of mentions of the former president, with substantial volumes of discussion about the military regime and the later transition. Mentions of the coup’s architect attracted significant attention, though engagement levels varied across platforms.
According to a former mining minister, the opposition’s distance reflects more than a retrospective view; it hints at a possible effort to regain power within the constitutional framework in coming years. Analysts suggested that opponents might attempt to frame the government as a casualty of its own rhetoric, a pattern some observers see continuing under the current leadership. Regardless of the president’s actions, the critique persisted, with commentators arguing that the right and far-right often seize on any angle to challenge the administration and to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the nation’s seat of power.