Chile’s National Security Council

Describes the Chilean National Security Council as an institution obstructive to unity, stability and democracy in post-Pinochet Chile.

This paper examines one of the ways in which the Chilean armed forces have continued to exert power and influence in post-dictatorship Chile -through the National Security Council, a quasi-governmental institution given the role of convening to discuss threats to national security. This paper shows how, due to the failures of the council to engage in legitimate national security discourse as well as the symbolic nature of this tool of military intervention, it is in actuality a body that is not conducive to the furthering of unity, stability, and democracy within Chile.
Although the power and influence of the military has been diminished since the end of the Pinochet dictatorship in 1990, the Chilean armed forces nonetheless have managed to maintain a substantial political and civilian role in Chilean society after the transition back to democracy. One of the most important manifestations of this lingering power and influence has been the National Security Council, a near-perfect representation not only of the Chilean military’s perpetual political ambitions but also of its fixation upon the notion of national security. The symbolism of this institution has consequently cast the very existence of the National Security Council in the national spotlight, and it has been one of the most debated and controversial issues of contemporary Chilean politics, especially in the current administration of Socialist Ricardo Lagos. The negative consequences of a sustained opportunity for military involvement in civilian and political affairs, even on a seemingly small scale, such as exists with the National Security Council in its present form is not conducive to further democratic growth and unity in Chilean society. What this paper aims to do is identify the importance of the National Security Council in its implications on civilian-military relations, national unity, stability, and democracy, and to explain how it is an obstacle to these principles.