This Court must protest to you, as it has done numerable times in the past, about the illegal acts of the administrative authorities who are illicitly interfering with the proper exercise of the judicial power, and who are preventing the police force from carrying out criminal sentences duly emanating from the criminal courts, when, according to the laws, these sentences should be carried out by said force without any obstacles. These acts signify a decided obstinacy in rebelling against the judicial sentences and a total lack of concern about the alteration that these attitudes and omissions have produced in the juridical order. All of this no longer means a simple crisis of state under the rule of Law, as was manifested to you in our previous letter, but a peremptory or imminent rupture of the country's legality
This time Allende responded with a long, harsh letter theorizing that with respect to the execution of judicial sentences, "the government, as 'warrantor of peace and public order,' should analyze each case and make its own judgments on the merits as to whether or not it would grant the assistance of the public force to carry them out." 64 Under the Constitution of Chile this was not within the powers of the Executive branch, and hence was unconstitutional. 65
Allende was directly attacking the rule of law and the judiciary. It was his constitutional obligation to have his just ministry enforce the rulings, however they were refusing to do so because it conflicted with their policy agenda - the same policy agenda which ignored the Chilean Congress's lawmaking power.
Would the conservative government have been better?
This isn't a comparison. This is a discussion of Allende and whether he was acting democratically. You seem to think that a minority parliament and a President that only got 36% of the vote somehow have a moral and democratic obligation to enforce their will on a country.