Miguel Enríquez: A fruitful life that endures over time

By Sergio Rodriguez Gelfenstein, Caracas / Venezuela

On October 5th, 50 years wii have passed since Miguel Enríquez, secretary general of the Revolutionary Left Movement (MIR) of Chile, fell in combat. A few years ago, in commemoration of this anniversary, I gave a few words at an event to which I was invited. I am going back to the “aide-memoire” of that intervention and update it for the necessary remembrance of the life and work of Miguel Enríquez.

I do not want to fall into a false originality that leads me to utter fatuous words, recall commonplaces and pronounce the non-committal phrases that characterize those speeches in which the life and work of a popular fighter is commemorated, and then, in everyday life, do the opposite of what is said.

I am not here just to say, “honor and glory.” Therefore, I am going to allow myself to use the fiery words of a great Venezuelan revolutionary, Jorge Rodríguez Sr., who on October 2, 1975, on the first anniversary of the death in combat of Miguel Enríquez, in a speech given in the Aula Magna of the Central University of Venezuela said the following: “Paying homage to Miguel Enríquez is for Venezuelan revolutionaries and those from any part of the world an unrenounceable commitment and duty,” adding later that this was “… a commitment to work seriously for the formation of the tools of combat of the oppressed peoples of the world…”

It has been 49 years since that memorable date and 50 years since Miguel Enríquez’s last fight on Santa Fe Street in the San Miguel district of Santiago de Chile. The situation in the world, in Latin America, in Chile and Venezuela is different, but the impact of his example is still present, as evidenced by the dozens of events that are taking place these days in Chile and other countries.

However, in some sectors, the idea persists that the Revolutionary Left Movement (MIR), of which Miguel was Secretary General, adopted ultra-left positions that played a decisive role in the fall of the Popular Unity (UP) government presided by Salvador Allende. These ideas were and are present in Venezuela. I think it is worth outlining some reflections on this matter as a form of reparation to Miguel Enríquez when 50 years of his physical disappearance are commemorated.

The hackneyed accusation that the MIR was an ultra-left organization would require a definition of what is “left” to place such a characterization in its proper dimension, especially since it has been deliberately decontextualized.

For there to be an ultra-left, there must be a left. In Chile in 1973, there were undoubtedly organizations that took on life from that political position. However, the most accurate diagnosis of what was going to happen and what did happen was that made by the MIR led by Miguel Enríquez. Another thing is that this movement was not prepared to successfully confront the situation created, when it was supposed to be that way.

It should be remembered that even President Allende believed in this possibility when, in the midst of the defense of La Moneda on September 11, he told his daughter Beatriz to communicate the following message to Miguel Enríquez: Now it’s your turn, Miguel! The Secretary General of the MIR himself had expressed his point of view regarding the situation and the palpable possibility of a coup d’état in the speech he made at the Caupolicán theater in Santiago on July 17 of that year. However, nothing detracts from the undoubted subsequent contribution of the MIR to the end of the dictatorship. Miguel Enríquez set an example of consistency that was present until the last day of the civil-military government that, defeated in 1989, continues to exert a powerful influence on Chilean politics to this day.

I must admit that from my modest position as a high school student I was a staunch opponent of the MIR and that it was in the trenches of combat in the Nicaraguan liberation war in 1979 that I became aware of the futility of that animosity built up with the interests of leaders of the traditional Chilean left. I discovered in the MIR militants comrades with an extraordinary conviction and deep-rooted values of solidarity and struggle.

All this to say that those of us who were on the “left” and who characterized the MIR as an ultra-left organization, were not far from assuming – despite our differences – mistaken positions regarding the definition of the main enemy, which would allow the establishment of a correct policy of alliances to join forces – in diversity – in order to confront the empire and its local lackeys from better positions.

That is to say, in Chile today, a large number of the leaders of that time, those of the MIR and those of all the parties that formed part of the Popular Unity government, are part of the system created by Pinochet and benefit from it. That is the insignificance of the debate of those years when it is discovered today that both sides aspired to the same thing.

The desperation to be in government is today above any conviction and any ethical behavior that could have been in the glorious years of Popular Unity, even establishing agreements with the promoters of the coup d’état, who are the same ones who currently attack Venezuela in every international forum they participate in, they are the same ones who supported the 2002 coup d’état against President Chávez, the same ones who were successful in Cúcuta in 2019, the same ones who actively participated in the Lima group.

It is worth saying that the current government – characterized as “center-left” – maintains the neoliberal practices that cemented the Pinochet dictatorship, paralyzed the popular mobilization of 2019, sabotaged the call for an original constituent assembly that would legally overthrow the constitutional system created by the dictator, and has become a fierce repressor of students, workers and Mapuche.

Seen in this way, we could ask ourselves, who was it? Who was and who is the left-wing? Who is ultra-left-wing and who is a reformist left-wing with no vocation for power? Who wasted the potential for popular participation and organization that the UP government generated? From another perspective, the traditional left-wing parties could be accused of being the main culprits of the coup d’état. Neither one nor the other, that would be a simplistic caricature of the political and social struggle.

To accept such a superficial and crude analysis means to underestimate the incredible destabilizing potential of the empire, which uses all political, economic and military instruments to reverse the course of history. The true explanations of the coup d’état must be sought in this, and in the inability of the popular movement to build a correlation of forces that would advance the process of change without mistaking who the main enemy was. In the case of Chile in 1973, the MIR certainly could not be placed in that dimension.

Miguel Enríquez tired of outlining a proposal for organization and struggle for the workers and the Chilean people. He did so in countless interviews, speeches and letters long before the coup d’état, even before President Allende came to power. Of course, he was fiercely attacked by the right and sanctified as profane by the traditional left.

After September 11, as early as February 17, 1974, the “MIR Guidelines for uniting forces willing to promote the fight against the dictatorship” was published. Still under the direction of Miguel Enríquez, the document stated that: “The fundamental task is to generate a broad social block that will develop the fight against the coup dictatorship until it is overthrown. To do so, it is necessary to unite the entire people in the fight against it and, in turn, it is strategically necessary to achieve the highest possible degree of unity between all the left-wing and progressive political forces willing to promote the fight against the coup dictatorship.” It proposed creating a Political Front of Resistance in which it called on the political parties of the UP, the sectors of the Christian Democratic Party (PDC) willing to fight the coup dictatorship, and the MIR to participate.

In turn, he proposed to build unity on the basis of an immediate platform with three objectives: the unity of the entire people against the coup dictatorship, the struggle for the restoration of democratic freedoms and the defence of the standard of living of the masses. This broad platform allowed the incorporation of all sectors that were really against the dictatorship.

Today, one could establish common elements between that situation and the one Venezuela faces today, the most important of which is the manifest intention of the United States to repeat in Venezuela what it achieved in Chile 51 years ago. In both cases, local lackeys are servilely folding to imperial interests and assuming terrorist positions to achieve their objectives. Likewise, in both cases, applying a correct policy of unity would have led or is now leading to the accumulation of forces necessary to advance.

It is valid to have opposed or oppose the Chilean MIR and its proposals for struggle in the 60s and 70s of the last century, but one must have a vision to recognize the undeniable moral and ethical worth of Miguel Enríquez. Only his revolutionary consistency made him stay in Chile after the establishment of the dictatorship, to assume a role in the direction of the resistance forces. The attitude of the MIR cannot be separated from that of its Secretary General.

Miguel Enríquez was the most visible figure of a galaxy of leaders who shaped a very complex stage of political struggle in which it was necessary to move from Christian social reformism supported by the Alliance for Progress, to the bright days of President Allende’s government and from there, to the criminal dictatorship of Pinochet, also supported politically, militarily and economically by the United States and the political framework provided by the fascist and Christian Democratic right by making a fierce and disloyal opposition to Salvador Allende.

Remembering Miguel Enríquez is an act of justice, it is a responsibility to the memory that must accompany the struggle of the people, it is reaffirming that after one stage comes another in which the commitment to the search for a better world is ratified, it is having the certainty that his physical absence does not prevent us from joyfully sharing the greatness of a man who only lived 30 years, but who will be everlastingly present in the struggle and victory of Chile and Latin America.