top 15% on a scale of political democracy. So what does this imply? Does this possibly suggest that Chile survived the transition to a multiparty presidential institution or does it mean that there were just constant peaceful exchanges in power?
             After years of struggle and political instability, which was the result of a bloody civil war, the newly independent Chilean nation came to accept the president as the paramount figure of the state. In 1830, after a clear military victory, Joaquin Prieto was declared the first militaristic president of Chile. His main goal was to encourage political order and economic growth. Even though he was looked upon by many as able and competent, there were still many revolutionary minds and undeveloped political factions out there to oppose his rulings. The result was unsuccessful coups and conspiracies. It was not until Chile's victory against General Santa Cruz, of the Peru-Bolivia Confederation, that the Prieto government had a new " lease on life." Though it must be taken into account that there was no real developed and mature opposition at this time. (It was not until Montt's administration that we see the country's first real opposition political party, the Conservatives.) In fact, there were not any real political parties at all. There was only a Prieto "administration" that categorized themselves as "pragmatic" liberals. The main argument proposed, is that there were no other serious threats/political parties out there to oppose the war or Prieto's proposed reforms. According to Artura Valenzuela, if there were multiple developed, opposition movements or parties to debate Prieto's decisions
             ...