ABSTRACT
Presidentialism is a signature institution, and it is a familiar institution to most of us. Upon seeing presidencies in Latin America, many conclude that this is all they need know about government institutions in the region. But the label is misleading, for presidencies work very differently in Latin America than they do in many other countries. And why they work differently is in large part the result of history. To overlook the details of Latin American presidencies is to miss out on a window to past political developments that now have a significant impact on contemporary democratic institutions. Indeed, the very monopoly of presidentialism in contemporary Latin America belies the ferment of different ideas on executive design seen in the region at the time of independence. The liberals, conservatives, and radicals that fought it out over fundamental constitutional issues recognized the significance of executive configuration, and each one had an impact in the years after independence. Conservatives pushed for monarchy, and their ideas resonated with an elite seeking immediate stability. It should not be forgotten that both Brazil and Mexico (and recall that most Central American states united with Mexico at this time) emerged with emperors at their stead.1 The hope that a European sovereign would sail to the Americas to assume the reins of government was not uncommon among conservative groups in the region. General José de San Martín unsuccessfully promoted monarchy for Peru after he helped secure its independence. This was, in fact, a central source of tension between him and Simón Bolívar. Manuel Belgrano, independence leader of Argentina, actually searched for an Incan “princess” in the hopes that a marriage between her and a European noble would produce a native, and thus more legitimate, monarchic formula.
