While violence is never an ideal solution, it is often a necessary evil in transitioning to a democracy. It is because of this that violence is seen as practical, not moral. Even using case studies discussed in class it becomes clear that practicality is often safer than morality, as new, emerging democracies are extremely delicate. Thus, many new democracies are faced with the challenge of balancing between morality and practicality, as seen with Chile in its emergence out of its authoritarian regime. Pinochet is a perfect example: was it immoral for him to receive his lifetime bid to the Senate? Was it immoral to not seek retribution and punishment against those who committed vast atrocities against numerous Chileans? Maybe, but the fact is pursuing those decisions were seen as impractical given Chile’s political climate at the time. In any new democracy, the continuation of that democracy is what is most imperative.

This is not to say that practicality and morality are mutually exclusive; in fact, I think that what often separates the two is the spectrum of time. While morality cannot be prioritized in the short term, as it jeopardizes the continuation and success of democracy not only in Chile, but in any given state, in the long-term morality is suited to prevail. Morality aligns itself with the quote, “Neither amnesia nor vengeance – justice!” and as seen throughout history, justice is often served over extended periods of time, as holds on democracy stabilize and expand. While not ideal, it is the only means by which the continuation of democracy is prioritized, preventing violence and injustice from emerging once again.