Pinochet is beautiful

Auberon Waugh

Churchill's despairing cry at the end of lunch at the Savoy — "This pudding' has no theme" — which was later used so cruelly as an explanation for Sir Edward Boyle's disappearance from politics, might be adopted as the anthem of the non-socialist majority at the present time: This pudding has no theme Stale buns and curdled cream God save us all.

Possibly "stale buns and curdled cream" is no way to speak of a lady, even in politics, but one has a distinct feeling that Mrs Thatcher belongs to last year's pleasures as part of International Women's Year. And despite the many excellent jokes and insights it afforded, International Women's Year is over.

For several months now I have been arguing that 1976 should be observed as National Constitutional Year. The government has already started the ball rolling with various fatuous proposals for Scotland and Wales, and these may help to promote an awareness that we in England no longer have even an unwritten Constitution. Its main plank was the absolute sovereignty of the House of Commons, subject to various piffling limitations, and this plank has collapsed, since a major estate of the realm can now challenge and defeat the House of Commons at any time and on any issue it chooses. The Commons' own instinct for survival may inhibit them from passing laws which will be unacceptable to organised labour, but this does not alter the fact that parliamentary sovereignty has ceased to exist.

Which must be particularly painful for those Conservatives who see their role as upholding British institutions,, however decrepit they may be. The sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law are plainly two institutions on which all the rest hang, and it seems reasonable to suppose that among the nation's natural upholders there is a certain yearning for something to uphold. That is probably just what General Augusto Pinochet felt on the September night in 1973 when, in order to protect the Chilean Constitution, he decided to move in and suspend it.

As events take their course in Great Britain, it seems to me that the similarities between our own situation and that of Chile in September 1973 begin to outnumber the differences. Like Wilson, Allende was elected on a minority vote after the alternative government — Edouardo Fei's Christian Democrats — had dramatically discredited itself with an inflationary programme of vastly increased public expenditure. Like Allende, Wilson is temperamentally incapable of resisting the inexorable forces of inflation set in motion by his predecessor. Although there are still marked differences of degree involved, both have allowed themselves to drift into the impossible situation of trying to introduce something approaching a revolutionary socialist programme by constitutional means.

The main differences between Santiago then and London now are, as I have said, differences of degree: our inflation has not yet touched the 300 per cent mark, we can still borrow a little in the frenzied dealings around the North Sea Bubble, and most of our public services are not permanently on strike as they were in Chile. On top of this, we have an extraordinarily wet army and no Constitution which can reasonably claim to be upheld.

This last objection may seem unimportant or even frivolous, but it is remarkable how much effort these military regimes put into proving their own legality. The Chilean junta even produced a White Book (of which I possess a copy) arguing that Allende was planning an armed coup against the Constitution which was only forestalled by prompt action from the Generals. Legality is bound to be a major issue, and one which I would have thought we could usefully ruminate about at the present time. Unfortunately, however, there is a noticeable reluctance in England to think or talk about what is likely to happen when our present system of government had finally been allowed to destroy itself. Something like a hysterical block intrudes whereby military government equals dictatorship equals fascism equals the mass-murder of Jews, Negroes and Roman Catholics which is quite properly considered unthinkable. As a result, nobody is prepared to speculate on the likely sequence of events. One may doubt whether things are any better in Chile now than they were under Allende — with world copper prices down to nearly half the figure of Allende's day and food prices doubled, it seems highly unlikely. Similarly, it may be difficult to gauge the scale of political

repression, especially since the international protest moveTent took Chile under its wing'

But one may doubt whether Chile is quite the bubbling forum of free political debate we would all like it to be. In any case, few thinking people would ever argue for a military coup as an end in itself, and most civilised people In England would strongly oppose it in most

circumstances. My argument is simply that it

becomes historically inevitable when govern; ment breaks down through a collapse 0!'

economic and social order; and there is nothing to be gained by refusing to wonder whether such a situation may not be in sight. The first problem of a military regime will not be what to do with Paul Foot, Vanessa Redgrave and Private Eye. It will have to decide

first whether it will try to subdue or incorporate — beat or join — the trade unions. Since the first course of action will be infinitely more trouble,

and since the regime's first priority will be to restore the normal running of affairs rather than institute a full-scale civil war, and since, as

I have said, our army is an extraordinarily Wet one, it seems to me almost certain that the second course will be adopted and the final result of a military take-over will be a left-wing dictatorship, rather than a right-wing one. That may be seen as all the more reason for expressing pious horror at the thought of 3

military take-over. But a significant factor

which has been overlooked in the discussion 50 far is that this analysis of the likely result of 3

military take-over is not shared by the Left Who regard the prospect with even greater dismaY than Liberals or Conservatives.

So even if no benefit can follow from the fact of a military coup, there is reason to supPose that something good might come from the threat of one. A new and workable Constitution will never emerge from any rabble of part); politicians, union leaders and captains ° industry who might be called upon to parade their irreconcilable demands before a co.°1" mittee of "wise men" charged with pleasing everybody. But it might come about under the imminent threat of something worse.

So I urge that as many as possible of us, should greet the New Year with cries c" "General Pinochet is Beautiful. God bless th_e_ Chilean junta!" From the only photograph

my possession, I cannot see whether th` General has a moustache or not, but it is easY t,`" imagine what sort of thing would grow on hi" fine, fat face if he gave it a chance. Now iSth! time for as many army officers as can grow °

moustache to cultivate the Pinochet look. I° of time, I hope even the students will grow tired .

Che Guevara whiskers and Castro beards. Letaeveryone who has the misfortune to politician or union potentate proclaim his bel!e_• that a military take-over is just what trih,e country needs. Oddly enough, they will .fl themselves taken very seriously. In tur_; perhaps, we will frighten the brutes into ; us a Constitution which really works as welt giving our frustrated natural upholdel something to uphold.