Chilean television premieres on September 7 against a backdrop that still echoes the 1973 coup. Directed by Nicolás Acuña and voiced by a fictional Manuel Ruíz, the program draws inspiration from Valencian lawyer Joan Garcés, who advised the leadership of the People’s Union. The show lands at a moment when the 50th anniversary of the Palacio de La Moneda attack is fresh in memory. Even for a country where most viewers were not born in 1973, the event remains a referent. The past confronts current divides, the persistent rise of the far right, and the symbolic judgments tied to those who ruled then.
A recent national survey shows that nearly half of Chileans believe General Augusto Pinochet led a dictatorship from 1973 to 1990. A 50-year study by Pulso Ciudadano reveals this perception, while a CERC MORI survey from May indicates a troubling shift in views about the coup that toppled Allende: 36 percent justify the coup as a liberation from Marxism, up from 16 percent two decades ago who thought the military had the right to intervene.
Another study, a collaboration between Alberto Hurtado University and Criteria, reports that 91% of respondents value free elections and 88% defend human rights, though 64% show tolerance as a value and 60% justify authoritarianism in certain situations.
h2 reverse flow h2
The government of Gabriel Boric faces sharp disagreements with a right that dominates the Constitutional Council, yet seeks a space for a shared commemoration. The public debate unsettles both the left and the center-left. Since the start of the year, memory work has advanced and regressed in tandem. The appearance of the Naval Forces Commander in June, Admiral Juan Andres de la Maza, at Dawson Island, 2,200 kilometers south of Santiago, recalls a place where a regime once ran a concentration camp after the rebellion and where advice from former SS officer Walter Rauff resonates in memory. The Navy’s message was welcomed by some lawmakers who see it as progress toward denial of past wrongs.
h2 hour of revisionism h2
Yet the statement drew pushback from former president Sebastian Piñera, who has long opposed Pinochetism and argued that the 1973 coup was ultimately inevitable because the Popular Unity aimed to build a Marxist rule rather than operate within constitutional norms. His voice joined the chorus demanding a permissive tone toward 9/11-era debates, a signal that political stances remain deeply divided.
Congress has become a stage for these disputes. The right and far-right bloc secured the votes to authorize a reading of the August 22, 1973 House of Representatives statement, a document long used to justify the overthrow. In those decisive moments, opposition legislators urged immediate action to defend constitutional order and democratic coexistence among Chileans.
Political scientist Gabriel Gaspar warned that polarization remains the greatest risk half a century after the tragedy. Countering that, analysts note a realignment of power shaped by the left’s defeats and rightward gains in elections. The rejection of a progressive Magna Carta last September, followed by the May formation of a Constitutional Council with a strong pro-military tilt, signals a broader shift in how the coup and Pinochet are perceived.
h2 a book adds to the discussion h2
In parallel, a televised airing of Allende’s thousand days, along with unpublished memoirs of the former president, broadens the dialog. Patrick Aylwin, a pivotal figure in Chilean politics and a critic of the Popular Unity’s failed bid, provides a historical lens through which present events are judged. The political experience of the People’s Union between 1970 and 1973 stirs renewed interest, while former president Michelle Bachelet underscored that the central question—whether the tragedy could have been avoided—remains vital for steering Chile toward lasting peace. Bachelet urged careful public discourse, stressing that a coup can never be justified.
With these conversations advancing in public life, the country continues to confront how far memory should guide accountability and how democratic norms can be preserved in the face of political shifts. The dialogue moves from the past to present-day policy, inviting citizens to reflect on citizenship, human rights, and the responsibilities of governance in a society still defining its constitutional order.