Pinochet was simultaneously head of state, of government and (a position he retained for eight more years after the transfer of power to Patricio Aylwin in 1990) commander-in-chief of the army. A source of his great power throughout his seventeen years in charge was that he could rely on support from the three important organised civilian groups of the right:

• the neo-liberal technocrats, known as "the Chicago boys", who directed the economic ministries and formulated the economic programme of the military regime

• the Gremialistas under the leadership of Jaime Guzmán, the most powerful civilian advisor of Pinochet and the military junta; this group was the functional equivalent of the ruling party of the dictatorship

• politicians belonging to the National Party, the rightwing party at the time of the coup in 1973.

But Pinochet needed, and received, support from other sectors too. The business community was grateful to him because the overthrow of Salvador Allende had made possible the imposition of neo-liberal economic policies, including privatisation, the weakening of trade unions, and a decrease in the minimum wage. Businessmen, and politicians from the Unión Demócrata Independiente (UDI) and Renovación Nacional (RN) parties, were among the prominent civilians of the right who visited Pinochet during his 503-day detention (October 1998 - March 2000) at Virginia Water near London.

Pinochet also had the backing of a significant number of Chileans, even citizens on average or low incomes. In the 1988 referendum won by the democratic opposition, which made possible the transition to democracy, he received 43% of the votes.

A poll conducted by the Centro de Estudios de la Realidad Contemporánea (Cerc) found that between a quarter and a third of Chileans considered that Pinochet was the best Chilean president of the 20th century; a similar percentage rejected the view that he was a dictator, and credited him as being responsible for Chile's economic progress. These positive views were based on the assumption that Pinochet was a statesman, a unique figure in Chile (and in Latin America), someone who had saved Chile from communism.

The breaking-point for many of the people expressing these sentiments was the disclosure by the United States senate of Pinochet's secret bank account at the Riggs Bank in Washington DC. The effect of this information was a collapse in Chileans' regard for their ex-leader; nowadays, barely 10% of Chileans express respect for Pinochet, and no party leader of the UDI or RN defends him against accusations of profiteering. A dramatic change in opinion has occurred, but it is triggered by economic factors not by evidence of the deaths, torture, and exile inflicted on thousands of people.

What happened between 1973 and 1990 must be remembered in order to understand why the restoration of democracy has been so difficult. Pinochet sought to divide Chilean society, and succeeded (as president, he repeatedly stated: "we are in a war, gentlemen"). He also presented himself as the saviour of the country from chaos. But the mistakes of Salvador Allende, and they were considerable, can never justify the horrors of the dictatorship that followed.

Beyond good and bad

In comparative perspective, Chile attained democracy after an era of repressive authoritarian rule, like Spain under General Franco. During these regimes, there were institutional changes that modernised society and the economy, and facilitated the inauguration of democracy. But this does not mean that Pinochet and Franco are the founding fathers of democracy (as is argued by rightwing politicians in Pinochet's defence and, at the same time, as a way of diminishing the successful performance of three democratic governments of the Concertación alliance).

Non-democratic regimes produce modernising effects in society, as the German sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf argued in regard to the Hitler regime. This regime destroyed social barriers, opened the highest power positions of the Nazi party and the state to individuals belonging to the lower strata (see Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany [reprint, Greenwood Press, 1980]). But this does not make Hitler a founder of German democracy.