Декларация принципов военного правительства Чили. Части I и II
В дискуссии о насилии, привлекшей к себе немалое внимание и породившей жаркие споры, ее участники не раз обращались к опыту чилийского правительства, пришедшего к власти 11 сентября 1973 г. В ходе этой дискуссии неоднократно высказывались несовпадающие, противоположные, взаимоисключающие мнения относительно идеологических и политических взглядов и намерений членов этого правительства.
В наиболее систематизированном виде политическая философия хунты была изложена в документе «Декларация принципов военного правительства Чили», опубликованном в Саньяго 11 марта 1974 г. на испанском, английском, французском и немецком языках.
Поскольку текст этого документа, кажется, отсутствует в сети, полагаю возможным разместить здесь его англоязычную версию.
Declaration of Principles of the Chilean Government
Santiago, March 1974
Introduction
The Junta, which came into Government in Chile on September 11, 1973, has stated on many occasions that it wishes to inaugurate a new era in our history by planning a creative and stable political system for the future. It will be the task of the new institutions arising in the country to gradually provide a juridical framework for this great collective undertaking to which the nation is committed.
For this reason, six months having elapsed since Chile's liberation from Marxism and since the initiation of the new government, it considers the moment opportune to make known its Declaration of Principles. Within this declaration is contained the essence of the philosophy which has inspired the action of the Junta. An understanding, analysis, and diffusion of these principles is of fundamental importance to every Chilean so that he may actively participate in the reconstruction of the nation.
Santiago, March 1974
I. Chile in the World Today: Basis for a Definition
National reconstruction begins in Chile at a time when the whole world is undergoing a severe upheaval. Because of an economic crisis, which is itself a latent threat to world peace, we are faced by an even graver problem threatening the values and way of life of many societies in today's world.
A large sector of the human race, the so-called underdeveloped or developing nations, are overburdened by millions struggling in poverty and misery. Although not in the worst position, Chile belongs to this group. In our attempts to rise above our place among these nations, we observe two antagonistic types of society as possible models towards which we should aim. Some look toward the socialist and Marxist-Leninist inspired societies, while others hope for economic development compatible with the social justice and political freedom reached by the most advanced western nations.
Chile must reject the alternative of the Marxist inspired society, because of its totalitarian characteristics and its devaluation of the human being which are diametrically opposed to our Christian and Hispanic traditions. Furthermore, experience shows that Marxism does not create well-being, and its socialist and statist nature renders it incapable of achieving the economic development we require.
On the other hand, although the developed western societies may offer an infinitely preferable appearance, they have fallen into a suffocating materialism which has enslaved man's spirit. The so-called "consumer societies" have established a situation in which the dynamics of development seem to control man himself, leaving an inner feeling of emptiness and dissatisfaction, and producing a nostalgic desire for a more peaceful and humane existence. This condition favors that revolt of youth which periodically erupts in different forms. As a result of the September 11, 1973 action, we in Chile have been able to see only too clearly, that all this has been aggravated by the success of Marxist penetration into these seriously weakened societies.
While others are just setting out, naively, on the path of "dialogue" with an understanding of communism, Chile is on her way back.
Having undergone the experience of allowing Marxism within its democratic fold, having watched many democrats attempt to find common ground, in doctrine or in practice, with Marxist sectors, and having witnessed with its own eyes the fallacy and failure of the so-called "Chilean road to socialism',' our country has decided to fight openly international communism and the Marxist ideology it upholds. In doing so it has inflicted on communism the greatest defeat it has suffered in the past thirty years. The government of Chile makes no pretense of assuming any leadership beyond its own frontiers, but is aware, nevertheless, that the outcome of all that is taking place in Chile is being watched with interest by many peoples to whom our experiences may, in various ways, be useful.
While it is no concern of our country to put forward ideas of imagined world-wide scope or application, it is necessary for Chile to find its own, particular way to try to overcome the various critical factors which today affect other countries.
Chile must, therefore, work towards attaining, balancing and knitting together freedom as a way of life with the accelerated development of our economy and fair social progress.
To this task, already a challenge of the first order, must be added the necessity of accomplishing it while satisfying the spiritual restlessness of the individual, by building a nation, day by day, which reaches toward a condition worthy of man's dignity. To hope for the full attainment of such a concept would be to aspire to a factual utopia, an occurrence beyond the abilities of human nature. Therefore this cannot be presented as a "model" to be achieved by means of an ideological recipe, but only as an end toward which, together we may gradually and in the best possible way, approach.
With this in mind, the concept of the relationship between the individual and society must be established and defined; but beyond this, all else must be derived from our national makeup, past and present.
II. Тhе Concept of the Individual in Relation To Society
Chile's government, in tune with national tradition and with the outlook of the vast majority of its citizens, respects the Christian concept of the individual in relation to society. It was this relationship which shaped the western civilization of which we form a part, and it is the loss or distortion of this concept which, to a great extent, has provoked the moral disintegration endangering that very civilization.
In keeping with this statement, we hold that the individual is a being endowed with a soul. This is the springhead of the true basis of man's dignity, as we shall establish in the following principles.
1. The individual holds rights which are preferential to and above the state
These rights spring from the very nature of man himself and have their origin in his Creator. The State must acknowledge them and regulate their use, but it is not the State that concedes them, nor must it ever deny them.
2. The state must serve the individual, and not the reverse
Both from the point of view of his existence and his purpose, man is superior to the State. From man's standpoint, while he is a substantial being, society and the State are originally only accidental relationships. Thus it is possible to imagine man's temporal existence as independent from any form of society. On the other hand, not for one moment could the existence of a society or a state be conceived without the presence of man. Further, viewed objectively, man is primary, for while societies or the State exhaust themselves in the course of time and history, man survives them. He lives in history but is not consumed by it.
3. The purpose of the state is the general common good
Without contradicting ideas already expressed, since man cannot realize his full development without living within a society, he must group himself with other human beings. The general common good, which is the goal of the State, was recently defined by the Government in a public document as "that set of social conditions which enables each and every Chilean to reach his absolute personal fulfillment'.' (See statement on abstention from politics in public administration, December 1973).
This definition explains a concept of the common good that is as different from that held by liberal individualism as from totalitarian collectivism. Liberal individualism sees the common good as simply the sum of the individual's welfare, which all try to attain with almost total disregard for others. Collectivism, at the other extreme, understands the common good to be determined by the needs of the State, before which individual welfare as such completely disappears. Because of this, our century has witnessed fearful massacres staged by communism or national socialism, which was justified by its perpetrators in the name of so-called "collective welfare or necessity'.' These philosophies thus may lay bare an abysmal ignorance of the concept that the individual as such exists as an entity, possessing an ultimate purpose which grants him rights no human authority may lawfully violate.
The true idea of common good avoids both extremes and transcends them. It defines the common good as arising from the attainment of individual well-being through restraint, poise, consideration, and the positive and genuine respect for the well-being of others; in this the liberal concept is rejected. But at the same time, this concept springs from acceptance of the inherent rights of the individual and refuses to allow their possible infringement in the name of any false "common welfare'.'
Common good does not mean, then, the welfare of the State, nor does it mean the welfare of the majority, and much less, the welfare of a minority. It is the sum of those conditions by which each and every member of society may attain true individual welfare. Common good aims at enabling the individual to obtain fulfillment-not merely some individuals, be they majority or minority, but all and every one. It follows, then, that common good, as an objective, can never be entirely reached, just as absolute personal perfection can never be attained. Nevertheless, it points a goal to which the State must come as close as circumstances allow; it represents a permanent challenge to the State to always strive for although, due to man's imperfection, complete achievement will always escape.
Law, then, emerges as the principal instrument of authority to promote general common good, that is to say, to shape, in keeping with continually changing circumstances, the most adequate social structure so all and every member of the community may achieve personal satisfaction.
4. Common good demands respect for the principle of conditional supervision
Since every society has its origin in man, and the individual is its justification, it follows that the more complex groups come into being to fulfill tasks the smaller groups are unable to handle on their own. The lone individual forms a family group to reach objectives which by himself he cannot; in the next phase of human development a variety of more sophisticated groups come into being to obtain that which the family by itself cannot. Finally, the need to create a justly coordinated communal order impels all these intermediate groups to form themselves into a State, which undertakes those tasks none of them could manage directly.
This fact places a limit on the scope of activity to be undertaken by the larger social group. If the justification for the existence of the larger unit is the ability to act where the smaller one cannot, then it is evidently not right that the larger society should absorb the field that belongs to the smaller one, and over which the latter should exercise adequate autonomy. The area of influence of the larger society begins where the possibilities of effective action by the smaller one ends.
Such is the basic idea from which the principle of conditional supervision springs. By virtue of this principle no major social group may assume initiatives which the smaller group, especially the family, is able to manage, just as the family may not invade that which is personal and intimate to individual conscience.
The conclusion to be reached from applying this principle to the State must be that the State should only assume direct responsibility for those functions which the intermediate or minor social groups are unable to deal with adequately, either because they are beyond their possibilities to do so, as in the case of national security, police work or foreign relations, or because, due to their importance to the community, it is inadvisable to hand them over to limited private groups, as in the case of services or enterprises of strategic or prime importance to the nation, or finally, because, due to their nature, they require over all State coordination. For all other social tasks, the State can only intervene directly when an intermediate social group which should on its own be capable of handling a given situation, through neglect or fault, does not do so, even after the State has taken collaborative steps to overcome the deficiency. In this case the State acts as the supervisor for the common good.
Respect for the principle of conditional supervision is the key to the existence of a truly free society, and could almost be called a barometer for measuring the degree of liberty in a social structure. By contrast, the greater the State interference in a society, the less is its true liberty, regardless of how widespread may be the exercise of political rights. The fountainhead through which liberty offers personal and creative effort a margin of alternatives of sufficient variety is to be found in a private life, and in those activities which are independent from the State, and only subject to its control for the common good. Statism, on the other hand, produces a society that is grey, uniform, submissive, and without horizons.
5. Respect for the principle of conditional supervision implies acceptance of the right to private property and free initiative in economic activities
It is not difficult to see that the principle of conditional supervision presupposes the right to freedom of initiative in the economic field. Apart from being a right, the participation of private enterprise in production offers the only road to effective economic development, and the State, in keeping with the principles outlined, neither can nor should eliminate or absorb such participation. A centralized monopoly by the State of all economic activity not only leads to a statist society which, in the end, pragmatically denies personal freedom, but it also eliminates the creative capacity of private enterprise, whose replacement by the bureaucrat is detrimental to the emergence of new sources of production and labor.
The acceptance of free enterprise, as described, must, in no case, be taken as a disregard for the active and very important role given to the State in the economic field. The State's mission is not limited to ensuring a healthy competition and exercising a control over private enterprise to avoid abuse or monopoly. A modern economy also requires the State to participate in comprehensive economic planning. However, State planning should not grow so extensive as to block private enterprise, but rather it should complement it.
Further, it would be pointless to allow private enterprise in economic activities if at the same time the right to private property, in the form of consumer goods as well as production potential, is not recognized concept. The simplest form of this right is individual property, but communal property, when freely agreed to and maintained, may also be included. The State should only keep for itself such property which is strategic or vital to the country, and cannot be left, prudently, in limited private hands; all else should be left open to the right of private ownership. When determining the limits of the juridical State's economic power, requirement that ownership must be exercised in keeping with the social function inherent in the property, must also be established. Within this concept, the means must be devised whereby the right to private property becomes a reality for all Chileans, whatever may be their social level. Chile must become a land of property owners, not a country of proletarians. The right to private property requires legal guarantees against arbitrary dispossession. To this end it must be established that the State may only expropriate in cases of real necessity for the common good, and must pay just and timely compensation to the affected party.
Over and above the ideological reasons which favor acceptance of private ownership of goods, including production, it is essential to add that whenever the State lays hands on all sources of production, it becomes the only entity distributing the necessities of life to the citizen. Obviously, in such a case, political liberty disappears, for he who opposes the regime stands to see his family and himself starve. However, on the other hand, when the social function of property or its effective distribution among all social classes is neglected, morally unjust situations can occur which will create tension, strain, and pressure in society.
Окончание здесь.