Notes

What does the author of the passage imply in the first paragraph?
(1) Doubts about whether Salvador Allende’s government had been democratically elected caused suspicions about its political goals.
(2) Allende’s removal was believed to be necessary to reverse political decisions that were threatening Chile’s social and financial stability.
(3) Augusto Pinochet mistakenly believed the United States would support him if he attempted to remove Allende from power.
(4) Military leaders sympathetic to the United States hoped Allende’s removal would allow the Americans to control Chile’s mineral resources.

What conclusion can be drawn about the economic achievements of Pinochet’s regime?
(1) Although Pinochet claimed his policies were more successful than those of Allende, many actually had very similar results in the long term. (18%)
(2) Forcing weakly performing finance companies out of business was a key factor in allowing the economy to recover in the early 1980s. (16%)
(3) Despite the growth in Chile’s economy, foreign countries were reluctant to invest there because of its overreliance on its mineral wealth. (18%)
(4) Had the government not maintained control of the copper industry, Pinochet’s economic policies might not have been as successful as they were. (48%)

What does the author of the passage believe is true of Chile’s return to democracy?
(1) Pinochet’s insistence on retaining a position within the government regardless of the result of the plebiscite ultimately led to him losing power. (17%)
(2) Despite voting against Pinochet, the majority of Chileans believed long-term improvements to the economy would be more likely if he could stay in power. (12%)
(3) The country’s increased prosperity was only made possible by ensuring that Pinochet maintained control of the military and kept his political influence. (21%)
(4) Pinochet provided the basis for economic prosperity, but major economic growth would not have been possible without political freedom. (50%)

Chile under Pinochet
In Chile’s 1970 presidential race, voters elected Salvador Allende, a Marxist who ran on a socialist platform of nationalizing the mineral industry and redistributing land and income. Just three years later, the Chilean army, led by General Augusto Pinochet, overthrew Allende and installed a military dictatorship. Pinochet and his supporters were convinced the previous regime had led the nation to the brink of civil war. Although Allende had been legitimately elected, his socialist government’s policies and actions caused turmoil among the people and threatened commerce, creating an unbridgeable gulf that divided the country. These divisions were encouraged by the US government, which drastically reduced aid to Chile as a means of political opposition, and by foreign corporations with interests in valuable minerals such as copper. In any case, Pinochet’s coup d’état ended Chilean democracy, which dated back to the 1930s, and ushered in an era of repression and brutality unparalleled in the nation’s history. Pinochet banned opposition parties, suspended the constitution, and cracked down on political dissent. His regime had more than 100,000 citizens arrested, tortured tens of thousands, and murdered some 3,000 “enemies of the state.” For many Chileans, the next 17 years were a nightmare of fear and repression.
Following the takeover, Pinochet appointed a group of US-educated Chilean economists who, in stark contrast to Allende’s nationalization and central planning, instituted a radical free-market economic policy that led to high levels of unemployment and bankruptcies within the financial sector. Wages decreased and welfare spending was slashed, hitting the lowest segment of society the hardest. Still, after an economic crisis in 1982, Chile’s GDP began to grow at a steady average rate of 5.9 percent, the fastest in Latin America. Foreign companies whose assets had been seized by the Allende government were invited back, and state-owned companies were privatized, although the copper industry ― by far the biggest earner of foreign currency ― remained under direct state control. The export sector flourished, and poverty levels fell from 50 percent in 1984 to 34 percent in 1989. Although some world leaders credited Pinochet for these achievements, the crucial role of the country’s vast mineral wealth cannot be underestimated.
During the second half of his dictatorship, Pinochet’s iron grip relaxed slightly. A new constitution in 1980 opened the way to a plebiscite, in which the people could give an up-or-down vote on his continued rule. Pinochet hoped his economic success would enable him to remain in power, but in 1988, Chileans voted for a restoration of democracy with 56 percent in favor and 44 percent opposed. Stepping down in 1990, Pinochet nevertheless retained command of the armed forces and laid claim to a lifelong Senate seat. Chile continued to prosper as a result of successive administrations building upon the economic foundations he had put in place, and the country is widely considered a Latin American success story. Yet it was only when the shackles of dictatorship were removed that an investment-led boom would improve overall living standards. While his supporters believe he saved the country from becoming a communist state in the mold of Cuba, for many Chileans, Pinochet’s economic successes will always be overshadowed by the oppression they endured under him.