In death, as in life, Pinochet divides Chileans

General Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean military dictator who died aged 91 last week, was one of Latin America's most controversial 20th century figures. There is no doubt that he presided over a brutal dictatorship where at least 3,000 people were killed - many of them simply 'disappeared' - and many others were tortured or imprisoned. An estimated 200,000 people were said to have fled into exile under Pinochet's rule. At the same time it is also true that Pinochet paved the way for economic prosperity and stability and the creation of a modern state.

Pinochet came to power in a military coup in 1973 when he overthrew the government of President Salvador Allende, the world's first democratically-elected Marxist head of state. Pinochet, then head of the country's armed forces, viewed Allende as a dangerous Communist - we must remember that this was at the height of the Cold War - who presided over massive instability. And Allende, who had been elected with only 36 per cent of the popular vote, had presided over economic chaos, hyper-inflation and had embarked on a massive nationalisation programme.

While most of us in the democratic world simply dismiss Pinochet as a brutal dictator - which he was - in Chile his legacy has divided the people. While it is clear that the overwhelming majority of Chileans are happy with their democracy, which they have benefited from since 1990, and do not want to resort back to military rule, people are very much divided over Pinochet's 17-year rule. His supporters argue that Pinochet saved Chile from Communism, alignment with the Soviet Union and civil war, and paved the way for a stable economy and democracy which the country now enjoys.

It is true that Pinochet gave up power voluntarily in 1990 after he lost a referendum two years earlier and that a healthy democracy was established after that. It is also true that Pinochet introduced many economic and market reforms such as liberalisation, privatisation and pension reforms as well as sharply reducing inflation, which laid the foundations for sustained economic growth and the creation of the modern Chilean state.

Most economists would agree with this appraisal, even though it must be pointed out that Chile's strong economic performance from the 1990s onwards also has a lot to do with the sensible and moderate economic policies that the various democratically-elected Presidents have pursued since then.

Of course, Pinochet's economic achievements in no way excuse his abhorrent human rights record. Thousands of people were oppressed, tortured, murdered and forced into exile. Civil liberties, pluralism, freedom of expression and democracy were all suspended during his rule. This is also a fact which nobody can deny.

Pinochet's supporters tend to overlook these factors, pointing out that many more people would have died had the country descended into civil war in the 1970s. They also say that Chile's political and economic progress to date is due to Pinochet's rule. Even if this is true, it can in no way justify the terrible things that took place during the military dictatorship.

I like to compare Pinochet's legacy to Fidel Castro's. The Cuban dictator is also a very divisive figure who no doubt has many supporters at home, but he also has many enemies, both at home and in exile in the United States. Yes, Castro also did some good things, such as improving welfare, healthcare, education and social assistance in Cuba, but he is still a brutal dictator who has refused to usher in democracy and who has imprisoned and killed many of his opponents.

Like Pinochet, Castro is either hated or loved by his countrymen - there are always two sides to an argument but when dealing with controversial personalities such as Pinochet or Castro, their fervent supporters see only one side of the equation.

Because Chile was always so divided over Pinochet's legacy, and remains so today, successive governments have had to tread very carefully when deciding whether to bring the former dictator to justice. Pinochet remained head of the armed forces until 1998 and then became a life senator.

Various attempts to bring him to justice, both in Chile and Britain, unfortunately failed, mainly because the courts decided that he was unfit to stand trial. However, one cannot ignore the fact that a Pinochet conviction would have also increased social and political divisions in Chile, something various governments were well aware of.

Of course, for people who suffered under Pinochet, this did not matter, and one cannot blame them. Briton Dr Sheila Cassidy, who was tortured under the Pinochet regime in the 1970s, told the BBC the victims would be disappointed he never faced a trial.

"For people who were tortured and particularly for people who lost someone, whose daughter or lover was killed, I think that never goes behind you, and I think there will be a lot of anger that he has escaped prosecution," she said.

Chilean human rights lawyer Hugo Gutierrez was quoted as saying: "What saddens me is that this criminal has died without having been sentenced and I believe the responsibility the state bears in this has to be considered."

Pinochet was not given a state funeral but was buried with full military honours at the Santiago Military Academy, which shows just how delicate the situation had become. He certainly did not deserve a state funeral and the fact that he was given a military funeral - which was even attended by the country's defence minister (a Socialist) - shows that the government did not want to offend his supporters or divide the country further.

The country's Socialist President, Michelle Bachelet, deserves particular praise and credit for the way she dealt with Pinochet's death. Although her father was tortured to death by the Pinochet regime and she herself was imprisoned and tortured under military rule, she showed no sign of bitterness when she said, after the former dictator's death, that she had seen enough signs of division in Chile and that she was sure Chileans were mature enough to put their past behind them and look to the future. However, she said - rightly so - she would not be attending Pinochet's funeral, as "it would be a violation of my conscience to attend."

In a statement read recently by his wife on his 91st birthday, General Pinochet said he accepted "political responsibility" for acts committed during his rule. However, he never showed any remorse for the terrible human rights abuses that took place under his rule and ultimately, he was never brought to justice. His legacy will now have to be judged by history.