Berkley Center

Few would dispute the statement that both justice and forgiveness rank among mankind’'s most exalted virtues. Yet, on the other hand, their starkly conflicting natures are clear and evident. If we define justice in its most popularly understood form to mean “to render to each his due,” and understand mercy to involve some measure of forbearance or leniency in punishment towards a guilty party, the two ideas seem to strike us as contradictory at their very cores. How can each be rendered his due if the consequences of his actions are withheld? How can we ensure the realization of justice if some misdeeds are to be pardoned without due reckoning? How can equity and clemency be reconciled?

In Chile, this matter presents itself as more than just theoretical inquiry; it is a pressing, concrete concern impacting the society as a whole. Late in summer 2010, in preparation for the coming bicentennial independence celebration, the Catholic Church in Chile, or more specifically the Permanent Committee of the Episcopal Conference of Chile, released a proposal suggesting that President Piñera issue an “indulto” (pardon) on a case by case basis to certain categories of Chilean prisoners, including the elderly, the terminally ill, and those who are considered rehabilitated to the extent that they pose no threat to society. Most notably, the document proposes that this indulto should extend and apply to many of the individuals who are currently imprisoned for having committed a wide range of human rights violations during the military regime of Pinochet.

To understand the depth of the controversy surrounding this issue in Chile, it must be viewed in its full context. The military toppling of Salvador Allende'’s democratically elected socialist government on September 11, 1973 represented a watershed in the country'’s history. It instantly divided the population between those who supported the overthrow of Allende'’s radical and struggling government, and those who opposed military rule and the overthrow of the democratic system. Subsequently, these rifts were deepened and inflamed with the discovery in the 1990’s of the widespread violations of human rights that occurred beneath Pinochet'’s rule.

As reflected in the document'’s title, “Chile, a table for all in the Bicentennial,” the Church believes that an indulto would represent a significant step towards national reconciliation, helping to heal the wounds and divisions that linger stubbornly from the age of the aforementioned regime. Reflecting the idea of a justice that is more restorative than retributive, the document emphasizes the compatibility of justice and forgiveness; while condemning any abrogation of rule of law and indicating the importance of “ensuring the rule of justice… and safeguarding the rule of full human rights with regards to crimes against humanity… the Church believes that steps can be taken for clemency.” The document appeals heavily to Chile’'s Christian identity, beseeching citizens to look beyond “judicial orders and their interpretations,” to the teachings of Christ, which affirm that “the logic of forgiveness is the only one that can heal wounds, return confidence, and inaugurate new times.” For the Church, a fractured and divided Chile can be made whole again only through the process of forgiveness; Chile'’s people must be able to demonstrate a “fraternal spirit,” and the ability to“ make decisive gestures of reunion and reconciliation” if they hope to successfully rebuild their country and pave the way for a better future.

Certain portions of the population have been very supportive of the proposed measure, stressing its importance in the process of reconciliation and unification. Among them include the associations of retired military, who responded to the proposal with a statement advising President Piñera to go ahead with implementing the indulto, and to “ignore the “improper and offensive pressure from those who, selfishly, insist in perpetuating hate and division among Chileans.” They asked the government to distance itself from its former policy of retribution and punishment, and to “adopt a more wise and just resolution in this transcendental matter that affects the nation'’s soul,” allowing the country to join together and “face its third century in unity.”

Unsurprisingly however, the proposal has been met by significant criticism from international and Chilean groups alike. Amnesty International officially called upon Piñera to reject the proposal, indicating that a general indulto would violate victims'’ rights and broach international law. From a more personal standpoint, many Chileans reject the claim that this indulto would serve any reconciliatory or healing function. In fact, many believe that a pardon for these convicted violators of human rights would serve to further aggravate tensions within the country, reopening wounds that have begun to heal. Héctor Salazar, a human rights lawyer, expresses his opinion in El Quinto Pode that an indulto indicates “a significant sacrifice of justice, and thus… rather than pacify, disturbs social life, thus achieving the opposite of what is said to want: peace and tranquility.”

Furthermore, opponents point to the fact that the process of justice thus far been significantly lacking in Chile, with slow and insufficient compensation for victims and minimal convictions and light sentencing for perpetrators. What is necessary for reconciliation, critics claim, is an invigorated approach to compensation for the already disadvantaged victims, not an indulto that would tip the balance even further in favor of those guilty of crimes against humanity.

While Piñera officially declined and rejected the proposal, debate rages on concerning its content. It appears that this document, composed with the intention of unification and reconciliation, has in many ways highlighted and accentuated the continued fragmentation of Chilean society. The heated public dialogue and fiery controversy has in many ways emboldened the nation'’s societal cracks, and revealed an unfortunate fact: Chile remains a country divided.

Perhaps the Church’'s proposal is mistaken, and an indulto is neither a timely nor appropriate course of action to bring about reunification and resolution in Chile. It seems that the country and its citizens are not quite ready to take the leap towards forgiveness; more time must pass, and justice must be allowed to run its course. However, someday Chile will be forced to face its past, reconcile its differences, and erase the lines that now divide. When and how this drama will unfold, only time will tell.