In 1989, after 17 years of state terrorism and authoritarianism, Chile transitioned back to democracy. Since then, many scholars have studied and attempted to delegitimize Pinochet’s dictatorship...Show moreIn 1989, after 17 years of state terrorism and authoritarianism, Chile transitioned back to democracy. Since then, many scholars have studied and attempted to delegitimize Pinochet’s dictatorship by focusing on its excessive violence. Not only have they furthered the quasi-axiomatic incompatibility between legitimacy and violence, these scholars have also participated in the creation of an immense literature on Pinochet’s violent practices. Yet, in contrast, the literature explaining the longevity of the regime is disproportionately small. In light of this imbalance, this paper examines how violence allowed this authoritarian regime to be one of the longest and latest dictatorships in Latin America. The nature of violence must be reconsidered in an effort to uncover hidden perpetrators who contributed to the dictatorship’s longevity. To do so, Pinochet’s regime is analysed through a Weberian lens. That is, Weber’s three sources of leadership legitimacy: charisma, traditions and legality. This paper exposes the theoretical weaknesses of the conceptualization of legitimacy and of violence. As long as a theoretical shortcoming of these concepts exists, difficulties to evaluate, judge and react appropriately to authoritarianism in practice will persist. This will, in turn, come with additional pernicious effects such as political and social polarization in post-authoritarian societies.Show less
