It is quite difficult to argue Arturo Valenzuela's theoretical analysis that Presidentialism provides the fuel for political instability and in turn inhibits the democratization process. He claims that the combination of a multiparty system and a presidential system is disadvantageous to a stable democracy. Is it safe to assume that a "successful democratic government results from the translation of diverse societal options into majority options, either through the election of a majority party or the creation of a majority coalition?" It has almost undoubtedly been proven that without at least an implicit majority support, a government and it's president falls. It is very rare that a minority president in Latin America survives. The weakness and downfall of a presidential system is the failure to control a cooperative and functional, congressional majority. This is a problem faced by many multi-party systems. In fact, Scott Mainwaring implies that among all the cases of "stable" presidential democracies in Latin America, only one, the Chilean, had a multiparty system. The following essay will evaluate the history of the presidential system in Chile. Furthermore, it will assess the validity of Valenzuela's main argument that a presidential institution in Latin America cannot survive under a multiparty legislative sector due to his theory of majority rule. There may be one exception though.
             Since 1830, Chile experienced only " thirteen months of unconstitutional rule under some sort of junta, and only four months under a junta dominated by military." From 1830 to 1973 all Chilean presidents were followed in office by their appropriately elected successors, not necessarily through fair elections though. Before 1973, there was a high success and a stable and uninterrupted case of democratic rule. In fact, Kenneth A. Bollen's study in 1965 hypothesizes that Chile was in the ...