Theoretical Approaches to the Stability of Competitive Presidential Systems: The Cases of Uruguay and Chile

This article examines the main theoretical approaches to the study of the stability of presidential political systems in contemporary comparative political science. The analysis centers on the problem of democratic survival in the context of institutional, socio-economic, and cultural challenges that have become particularly salient in the aftermath of the third wave of democratization. The author proposes concentrating on three analytical perspectives—institutional, historical, and sociocultural—which together form an integrated research framework for understanding the factors of stability in contemporary political systems with an elected head of the executive branch. Uruguay and Chile are examined as comparative examples of some of the most stable competitive presidential systems in Latin America, where, after the end of authoritarian rule, electoral institutions were restored, party competition was preserved, and stable practices of coalition interaction were established. The article shows that the stability of presidential democracies is determined by the quality of their functioning, the nature of interaction among political actors, and the degree of institutionalization of the rules of political competition. Particular attention is paid to the role of mechanisms that limit power, the coherence of elite strategies, and the capacity of political institutions to integrate social interests.

The second part examines the historical perspective, which explains stability through longterm trajectories of development shaped by key turning points. It emphasizes institutional memory and the reproduction of practices that reduce the likelihood of abrupt deviations from the established order, while also potentially reinforcing inertia and complicating reform. The third part analyzes sociocultural explanations that link stability to levels of development, social inequality, political participation, and value orientations. The conclusion, based on the cases of Uruguay and Chile, shows how the stability of contemporary presidential systems is formed through the interaction of institutions, historical legacies, socioeconomic conditions, and the sociocultural characteristics of political development.

1. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., Robinson, J. A., Yared, P. (2008). Income and democracy. American Economic Review. 98 (3), 808-842. DOI: 10.1257/aer.98.3.808

2. Alemán, E., & Navia, P. (2009). Institutions and the legislative success of ‘strong’ presidents: An analysis of government bills in Chile. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 15(4), 401–419. DOI: 10.1080/13572330903302471

3. Alemán, E., Cabezas, J. M., & Calvo, E. (2021). Coalition Incentives and Party Bias in Chile. Electoral Studies, 72, Article 102362. DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102362

4. Almond, G., A. & Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, Princeton University Press, 574 p.

5. Ansell, B. W., & Samuels, D. J. (2018). Why Inequality Not Undermine Democracy. Cambridge University Press, 1-46.

6. Arestis, P. & Sawyer, M. (Eds.) (2009). Path Dependency and Macroeconomics, Palgrave Macmillan, 261 P.

7. Bermeo, N. (2016). On democratic backsliding. Journal of Democracy, 27 (1), 5-19. DOI: 10.1353/jod.2016.0012

8. Bernard, M. (2015). Chronic Instability and the Limits of Path Dependence. Perspectives on Politics, 13 (4), 976-991. DOI: 10.1017/S1537592715002261

9. Beyer, J. (2010). The Same or Not the Same. On the Variety of Mechanisms of Path Dependence. International Journal of Social Sciences. 5 (1), 1-11.

10. Boix, C., & Stokes, S. C. (2003). Endogenous democratization. World Politics, 55 (4), 517-549. DOI: 10.1353/wp.2003.0019

11. Boulding, C. E. & Nelson-Nuñez, J. (2014). Civil Society and Support for the Political System in Times of Crisis. Latin American Research Review. 49 (1), 128-154. DOI: 10.1353/lar.2014.0015

12. Buquet, D., & Moraes, J. A. (2018). Construyendo un Equilibrio Democrático: La Reforma Constitucional de Uruguay en 1917. Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Política, 27(1), 19–39.DOI: https://doi.org/10.26851/rucp.27.1

13. Buquet, D., & Piñeiro, R. (2016). The Quest for Good Governance: Uruguay’s Shift from Clientelism. Journal of Democracy, 27(1), 139–151. DOI: 10.1353/jod.2016.0008

14. Buquet, D., Chasquetti, D., & Moraes, J. A. (1998). Fragmentación Política y Gobierno en Uruguay: ¿Un Enfermo Imaginario? Instituto de Ciencia Política, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de la República.

15. Čábelková, I., Strielkowski, W. (2013). Is the Level of Taxation a Product of Culture? A Cultural Economics Approach. Society and Economy. 35 (4), 513–529. DOI: 10.1556/socec.2013.0007

16. Capoccia, G. (2016) When Do Institutions “Bite”? Historical Institutionalism and the Politics of Institutional Change. Comparative Political Studies. 49 (8), 1-33. DOI: 10.1177/0010414015626449

17. Capoccia, G., & Kelemen, R. D. (2007). The study of critical junctures: Theory, narrative, and counterfactuals in historical institutionalism. World Politics, 59 (3), 341–369. DOI: 1017/S0043887100020852

18. Chasquetti, D., & Buquet, D. (2004). La Democracia en Uruguay: Una Partidocracia de Consenso. Política, 42, 221–247.

19. Collier, D. & Munck, G. L. (2017). Building Blocks and Methodological Challenges: A Framework for Critical Junctures. Qualitive & Multi-Method Research. 15 (1), 2-9.

20. Collier, R. B., & Collier, D. (2002). Shaping the political arena: Critical junctures, the labor movement, and regime dynamics in Latin America (2nd ed.). University of Notre Dame Press, 122 P.

21. Dahl, R. A. (2005). On democracy (2nd ed.). Yale University Press, 557 P.

22. Dahl, R. A., & Lindblom, C. E. (1953). Politics, economics, and welfare: Planning and politico-economic systems resolved into basic social processes. Harper & Brothers, 557 P.

23. Dalum, S. & Knutsen, C. H. (2016). Democracy by Demand? Reinvestigating the Effect of Self-Expression Values on Political Regime Type. British Journal of Political Science. 47 (2), 437-461. DOI: 10.1017/S0007123415000447

24. Dangelico, R. M., Fraccascia, L., Nastasi, A. (2020). National Culture’s Influence on Environ-mental Performance of Countries: A Study of Direct and Indirect Effects. Sustainable Development. 28 (6), 1773–1786. DOI: 10.1002/sd.2123

25. De la Cerda, N. (2022). Unstable Identities: The Decline of Partisanship in Contemporary Chile. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 14(1), 3–30. DOI: 10.1177/1866802X211069378

26. De la Cerda, N. (2022). Unstable Identities: The Decline of Partisanship in Contemporary Chile. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 14(1), 3–30. DOI: 10.1177/1866802X211069378

27. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–38). University of Chicago Press.

28. Elster, J., Gargarella, R., Naresh, V., & Rasch, B. E. (2018). Constitution-making and transitions to democracy. Cambridge University Press.

29. Freidenberg, F. (2024). Democracy in Latin America: Between Backsliding and Resilience. Athena – Critical Inquiries in Law, Philosophy and Globalization. 4 (1), 68-109. DOI: 10.6092/issn.2724-6299/19152

30. Gorodnichenko, Y., & Roland, G. (2015). Culture, institutions, and democratization. Review of Economics and Statistics, 97 (2), 492–506. DOI: 10.1162/REST_a_00473

31. Guo, S., & Stradiotto, G. A. (2014). Democratic transitions: Modes and outcomes. Routledge, 138 P.

32. Haggard, S., & Kaufman, R. R. (2012). Inequality and regime change: Democratic transitions and the stability of democratic rule. American Political Science Review, 106 (3), 495–516. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055412000287

33. Hicken, A. (2020). The Role of Political Parties in Making Democracy Work. V-Dem Institute. Briefing Paper #3.

34. Huntington, S. P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. Yale University Press, 499 P.

35. Huntington, S. P. (1991). Democracy’s Third Wave. Journal of Democracy. 2 (2), 12-34. DOI: 10.1353/jod.1991.0016

36. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge University Press, 344 P.

37. Karl, T. L. (1990). Dilemmas of democratization in Latin America. Comparative Politics, 23 (1), 1-21. DOI: 10.2307/422302

38. Kluch, S. P., Vaux, A. (2017). Culture and Terrorism: The Role of Cultural Factors in Worldwide Terrorism (1970–2013). Terrorism and Political Violence. 29 (2), 323-341. DOI: 10.1080/09546553.2015.1038523

39. Kumar, S., Giridhar, V., Sadarangani, P. (2019). A Cross-National Study of Environmental Performance and Culture: Implications of the Findings and Strategies. Global Business Review. 20 (4), 1051–1068. DOI: 10.1177/0972150919845260

40. Levitsky, S. and Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Penguin Random House, 320 P. Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and polit-ical legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53 (1), 69-105. DOI: 10.2307/1951731

41. Lowenthal, A. F. & Bitar, S. (2015). Democratic Transitions: Conversations with World Leaders. Johns Hopkins University Press, 488 P.

42. Luna, J. P. Disjointed Polarization in Chile’s Enduring Crisis of Representation (2024). Latin American Politics and Society. 67 (3), 1-3. DOI 10.1017/lap.2024.19

43. Mahoney, J. (2000). Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society. 29 (4), 507-548. DOI: 10.1023/A:1007113830879

44. Mahoney, J. (2001). The legacies of liberalism: Path dependence and political regimes in Central America. Johns Hopkins University Press, 416 P..

45. Mainwaring, S. & Pérez-Liñan, A. (2013). Democratic Breakdown and Survival. Journal of Democracy. 24 (2), 123-137. DOI: 10.1353/jod.2013.0037

46. March, J. G. & Olsen, J. P. (2005). Elaborating the “New Institutionalism”. ARENA Working Papers. 11, 1-28. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548460.003.0001

47. Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2010). The place of path dependence in an evolutionary perspective on the economic landscape. In R. Boschma & R. Martin (Eds.), The handbook of evolutionary economic geography (pp. 62–92). Edward Elgar.

48. Mechkova, V., Lührmann, A. & Lindberg, S. I. (2017). How much democratic backsliding? Journal of Democracy. 28 (4), 162–169. DOI: 10.1353/JOD.2017.0075

49. Merkel, W. and Lührmann, A. (2021). Resilience of democracies: responses to illiberal and authoritarian challenges. Democratization. 28 (5) DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2021.1928081884

50. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83 (2), 340-363.

51. Møller, J. & Skaaning, S. (2014). The Rule of Law: Definitions, Measures, Patterns and Causes. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, 210 p.

52. Moore, B. (1966). Social origins of dictatorship and democracy: Lord and peasant in the making of the modern world. Beacon Press, 586 p.

53. Morlino L. (2004). The Quality of Democracy: An Overview. Journal of Democracy. 15 (4), 20-31. DOI: 10.1353/jod.2004.0060

54. Munck, G. L. (2010). Los Orígenes y la Durabilidad de la Democracia en América Latina: Avances y Retos de una Agenda de Investigación. Revista de Ciencia Política. 30 (3), 573-597.

55. Munck, G. L. (2022). The Theoretical Foundations of Critical Juncture Research: Critique and Reconstruction / Collier D. and Munck G. L. (eds.) Critical Junctures and Historical Legacies: Insights and Methods for Comparative Social Science. – Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

56. Murtin, F., & Wacziarg, R. (2014). The democratic transition. Journal of Economic Growth. 19 (2), 141–181. DOI: 10.1007/s10887-013-9100-6

57. Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge University Press.

58. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, 159 p.

59. O’Donnell, G. (1994). Delegative democracy. Journal of Democracy. 5 (1), 55-69. DOI: 10.1353/jod.1994.0010

60. Pérez-Liñán, A. and Mainwaring, S. (2013). Regime Legacies and Levels of Democracy: Evidence from Latin America. Comparative Politics. 45 (4), 379-397. DOI: 10.5129/001041513X13815259182785

61. Pevnick, R. (2024). Democratic Stability and Backsliding. Political Philosophy. 1 (2), 514-544. DOI: 10.16995/pp.17029

62. Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton University Press, 208 p.

63. Pierson, P., & Skocpol, T. (2002). Historical institutionalism in contemporary political science. In I. Katznelson & H. V. Milner (Eds.), Political science: The state of the discipline (pp. 693–721). W. W. Norton.

64. Przeworski, A. (2019). Crises of democracy. Cambridge University Press, 239 p. DOI: 10.1017/9781108671019

65. Przeworski, A., & Limongi, F. (1997). Modernization: Theories and facts. World Politics. 49 (2), 155–183. DOI: 10.1353/wp.1997.0004

66. Rød E. G., Knutsen C.H., Hegre H. (2020). The Determinants of Democracy: A Sensitivity Analysis. Public Choice. 185 (2), 87-111. DOI: 10.1007/s11127-019-00742-z

67. Ruck, D. J., Matthews, L. J., & Atkinson, Q. D. (2020). The cultural foundations of modern democracies. Nature Human Behavior. 4 (3), 265-269. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-019-0769-1

68. Scully, T. R. (1992). Rethinking the Center: Party Politics in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Chile. Stanford University Press.

69. Siavelis, P. M. (2016). Crisis of Representation in Chile? The Institutional Connection. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 8(3), 61–93. DOI: 10.1177/1866802X1600800303

70. Skocpol, T. (1979). States and social revolutions: A comparative analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge University Press, 407 P.

71. Somer, M., McCoy, J., & Luke, A. (2021). Pernicious polarization and democratic back-sliding. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 681 (1), 69–90. DOI: 10.1177/0002716218818781

72. Sorensen, A. (2022). Taking critical junctures seriously: theory and method for causal analysis of rapid institutional change. Planning Perspectives. 38 (5), 929-947. DOI: 10.1080/02665433.2022.2137840

73. Stinchcombe, A. L. (1968). Constructing social theories. Harcourt, Brace & World, 320 p.. Svolik, M. W. (2015). Which democracies will last? The article. Journal of Democracy. 26 (4), 17-30. DOI: 10.1353/jod.2015.0065

74. Thelen, K. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science. 2, 369-404. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.369

75. Thelen, K. (2000). Timing and temporality in the analysis of institutional evolution and change. Studies in American Political Development. 14 (1), 101-108. DOI: 10.1017/S0898588X00003011

76. Tilly C. (1994). Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–1992. Blackwell, 271 p. Treisman, D. (2020). Economic development and democracy: Predispositions and triggers. Annual Review of Political Science. 23 (1), 241–257. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-043546

77. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Chile: Origin and Consolidation of a Latin American Democracy. In L. Diamond, J. Hartlyn, J. J. Linz, & S. M. Lipset (Eds.), Democracy in Developing Countries: Latin America (2nd ed., pp. 191–247). Lynne Rienner Publishers.

78. Vanhanen, T. (2004). Democratization: A comparative analysis of 170 countries. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203614501

79. Williams, L. K. & McGuire, S. J. (2010). Economic Creativity and Innovation Implementation: The Entrepreneurial Drivers of Growth? Evidence from 63 Countries. Small Business Economics. 34 (4), 391-412. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-008-9145-7

80. Patzelt, V. (2012). Evolutsiya institutov, morfologiya i uroki istorii. Mozhno li izvlekat uroki iz istorii? Politicheskaya nauka. 3, 50-70. (In Russian)

81. Solovyov, O. M. (2003). Politicheskie instituti, SPbGU, 145 P. (In Russian)

82. Varshavsky, A. Y. (2019). Institutsional’nye osnovy vnutripartiinykh koalitsii v prezidentskikh sistemakh: primer Urugvaya. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Politologiya, 21(4), 673–686. doi: 10.22363/2313-1438-2019-21-4-673-686 (In Russian)

83. Varshavsky, A. Y. (2025). Peremenchivaya ustoichivost’: vseobshchie vybory v Chili kak institutsional’noe otrazhenie demokraticheskikh traditsii. Sravnitel’naya politika, 16(1), 89–111. DOI: 10.46272/2221-3279-2025-1-16-5 (In Russian)