The sense of economic unfairness in Chile is sharply pronounced, exacerbated by a wealthy president with a tin ear.
Until
just a few days ago, Chile probably looked to most people like the most stable
country in Latin America, and the least likely to erupt in massive social
unrest. Few if any countries in the region have experienced decades of economic
growth and an expansion of the middle class, alongside reliably fair and
competitive elections. And yet last week, the streets of Santiago became the
scene of violent clashes between thousands of protesters and security forces,
leaving more than a dozen people dead and hundreds arrested. In response,
President Sebastian Pinera deployed the military, imposed curfews and announced
a state of emergency, declaring, “We are at war.”
The
sudden, ferocious eruption of discontent caught just about everyone at home and
abroad by surprise. If it can happen there, some observers noted, it can happen
anywhere.
It all
started after the government announced an increase in subway fares, raising
prices by about 4 percent. The fare hike sparked a student protest calling on
riders to stop paying. That call gradually caught on, leading to fare-jumping
mobs and, by the end of last week, largely peaceful protests had given way to
full-blown riots. Protesters barricaded entrances to subway stations and set
many of them on fire. They threw rocks at police, torched buses and cars, and
set the high-rise headquarters of national energy company Enel Chile in
downtown Santiago ablaze. The police first responded with water cannons before
Pinera, who then revoked the fare hike, handed security responsibility to the
military.
On the
fifth day of protests, Pinera, a wealthy businessman now serving his second
nonconsecutive term as president, changed tack. He offered a series of reforms:
increasing pensions, freezing electricity rates and expanding health care
benefits in hopes of restoring calm. But protesters weren’t satisfied, and the
country is now bracing for a general strike.
It is
the worst bout of unrest in Chile since the end of the Pinochet dictatorship
four decades ago. How did it come to this, in arguably the most successful
economy and democracy in all of Latin America?
While
some Pinera supporters baselessly charged that the mayhem was a plot by extreme
leftists who are sympathetic to Cuba and Venezuela and eager to sabotage
Pinera’s rightist government, most economists and international observers agree
that, although Chile’s economy has performed remarkably well, the extreme level
of inequality explains the depth of discontent. But even that economic
explanation fails to fully account for what has occurred.
Chile’s
economy is certainly a model of economic growth. Decades ago, its GDP per
capita was similar to that of its neighbors; now it is one of the highest in
the hemisphere. In a region where GDP growth can often fortify the rich and
leave the poor behind, Chile’s economic policies, through both center-right and
center-left administrations, have slashed the poverty rate from 40 percent in
1990 to less than 10 percent now, boosting the ranks of the middle class.
For all
its prosperity and decline in poverty, though, Chile indeed suffers from severe
inequality, as does just about all of Latin America. The Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development says Chile is one of its most unequal
member countries, and that the top 10 percent of Chilean earners make 26.5
times the average income. But inequality, according to one recent World Bank
estimate, is worse in Brazil, Colombia, Panama, Honduras and Guatemala.
Could
corruption instead be the real fuel of this popular uprising? But even on that
count, Chile ranks among the least corrupt countries in the Americas, according
to Transparency International’s index of perceived corruption in the public
sector.
If poverty,
inequality and corruption are hardly the worst in the region, the sense of
economic unfairness in Chile is still sharply pronounced, exacerbated by a
wealthy president with a tin ear. Pinera was dining at a posh Santiago
restaurant last Friday night while the city burned.
That
sense of an entitled upper class lacking empathy for those who struggle is all
too common across Latin America. It sparked riots in Chile, it seems, because
of economic modernization theory. As incomes rise, so do economic expectations,
and with them the potential for political instability if those expectations
aren’t met.
That’s
not even the full story, though. Chile is not alone. Violent protests have
engulfed other Latin American countries. The recent crisis in nearby Ecuador
triggered by austerity measures became so severe that the government relocated
out of the capital, Quito, to the port city of Guayaquil. Unrest has also
erupted in Nicaragua and Bolivia, leading some to suggest this could be the
opening stages of a “Latin American spring.”
These
trends aren’t confined to the region. Look at Lebanon, where mass protests that
began last week, initially over a new mobile phone tax on the use of WhatsApp,
are still pressing for changes from entrenched ruling elites over a range of
simmering economic and political grievances. Or consider Iraq, where huge
anticorruption protests were met with brutal, deadly force. Or France, where
the “Yellow Vests” convulsed the country for months last year.
In an
age where the public has developed a low tolerance for political and economic
frustration, there is no longer meek acceptance of inequality and unfairness as
unavoidable. Instead, there are demands for responsive, empathetic and
competent leadership.
Countries
that are overly dependent on single export commodities are particularly
vulnerable to unrest if market downturns hurt living standards. Austerity
measures, even modest ones, could be the detonators for explosions of popular
discontent, especially if they touch on daily living expenses like food, fuel
or public transportation. Demagogues could move masses, but masses can also be
mobilized on their own.
No
country, not even one with solid governance and strong economic growth, can
take political stability for granted anymore. If it can happen in Chile, it
can, indeed, happen anywhere.
***Frida
Ghitis is a world affairs columnist. A former CNN producer and correspondent,
she is a regular contributor to CNN and The Washington Post. Her WPR column
appears every Thursday. Follow her on Twitter at @fridaghitis.