IT is not particularly surprising that Michelle Bachelet, who served as the president of Chile from 2006 to 2010, is expected to return to the role following next Sunday’s elections.

She was not re-elected only because she could not run again at the time: consecutive presidential terms are prohibited under Chilean law. But she exited the presidency with a popularity rating northwards of 80pc. That’s a fairly extraordinary accomplishment.

What is arguably even more extraordinary is the fact that this time around her primary rival is a childhood playmate: their fathers were both air force generals in the run-up to the coup 40 years ago that installed Gen Augusto Pinochet in power.

Gen Alberto Bachelet was loyal to the elected president, Salvador Allende, and refused to switch allegiances. He was jailed, tortured and died in prison shortly thereafter. His wife and daughter also faced imprisonment and torture, followed by exile.

Gen Fernando Matthei, on the other hand, was promoted to air force chief and became a key member of the Pinochet junta.

His daughter, Evelyn Matthei, is the presidential candidate of the conservative coalition that currently rules Chile under Sebastian Pinera — and opinion polls suggest she does not have a hope in hell of getting within cooee of La Moneda, the presidential palace that daddy’s forces were happy to bomb on Sept 11, 1973.

It’s a legacy issue in more than one respect, though. Evelyn Matthei’s candidacy is also marred by the fact that Pinera, a billionaire businessman, has been the least popular president since the return to democracy. His tenure has been distinguished, above all, by popular protests not witnessed since the Pinochet era, including mass mobilisations by workers demanding a new constitution and students agitating for free education.

Bachelet has promised both, but her ability to deliver will depend on the results of the concurrent parliamentary elections. Substantial legislative changes require considerably more than a simple majority, and the existing rules are skewed against parliamentary results that truly reflect the popular will.

The nature of the rivalry between the leading presidential hopefuls is not exactly unique. A parallel could easily be drawn, for instance, with Bangladesh, where opposing political forces have been led for decades by the daughter of the nation’s founding father on the one hand and the widow of its first military dictator on the other.

It is nonetheless unusual, at least in respect of the individuals at its forefront.

At a broader level, though, it reflects a divide that blights several nations in the aftermath of traumatic national experiences. To take but two examples, Spain is yet to completely emerge from the dreary shadow cast by Francisco Franco’s extended fascist dictatorship, and Pakistan is still grappling with the consequences of Gen Ziaul Haq’s fundamentally vile misrule.

Chile has made considerable progress, though — to the extent that both Pinera and Matthei felt obliged to at least partially disavow allegiance to the dastardly dictatorship on the 40th anniversary of its inauguration in September, even though Matthei campaigned for the general in the 1998 referendum whose unexpected result effectively ended his reign.

There is still a tendency on the conservative side of politics, though, to perpetuate the myth that the 1973 coup was unfortunate but necessary, given the Allende government’s “excesses” in the sphere of economics.

No mention is made, in this context, of the concerted efforts by the privileged classes to thwart Allende’s socialist reforms, let alone of the considerable assistance provided to the naysayers by the CIA at the behest of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who were determined to “make the economy scream” by way of punishing Chileans for voting the wrong way.

In her first inaugural address, Bachelet echoed Allende in a pointed reference to his last speech by referring to the wide avenues in Santiago that he hoped one day would once again belong to a free people.

Although she was broadly viewed as a constituent of the so-called pink tide that washed across Latin America in the wake of Hugo Chavez’s ascendancy in Venezuela, Bachelet managed to retain her popularity without seriously interfering with the institutions of neoliberal capitalism.

This time, it seems, she is determined to adopt a more activist stance. Her potential parliamentary supporters include student leaders Camila Vallejo, Karol Coriola and Giorgio Jackson, the first two representing the Communist Youth party, all of whom are expected to be elected on Sunday.

A crucial factor in these elections is that Chileans are no longer obliged to vote, and the level of the turnout will inevitably be reflected in the results.

On the basis of opinion polls, the gap between Bachelet and Matthei is more accurately a chasm, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that the former will gain a simple majority at the first attempt, in which event she will have to rely on the Dec 15 run-off, which may produce a lower turnout.

There is no guarantee, though, that her rival will surround the first round. If she doesn’t, Bachelet’s opponent in the second round could conceivably be a fellow victim of Pinochet: Marco Enriquez-Ominami, whose father was killed in a shootout with Pinochet’s forces. As a young guerilla candidate in 2010, Enriquez-Ominami received 20pc of the popular vote in the first round.

Chile’s present constitution was introduced by Pinochet, which makes it an anachronism by definition. The country’s natural resources have stood it in good stead economically, but an equitable redistribution has thus far been something of a pipe dream.

Sunday’s elections offer a potential opportunity to move on. Chances are it won’t be wasted.