Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Gabriel L. Negretto
Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (C.I.D.E)
Prepared for delivery at the 2003 meeting of the Latin American Studies Association,
Dallas, Texas, March 27-29,2003
2
Abstract
Introduction
A rich literature on presidential regimes has repeatedly associated party fragmentation, and
its likely effect, minority presidents, with ineffective government, high levels of executive-
legislative conflict, and even democratic instability. So far, however, neither single-case
studies provide an accepted causal explanation of this association nor large-n statistical
studies prove beyond doubt that the relevant variables are significantly correlated. This
paper argues that the absence of conclusive theories or results is due to the lack of attention
to variables other than the share of seats of the president´s party in congress to explain the
This paper proposes that there are several possible categories of minority government, not
all them in principle related to poor government performance. Using an analytic model of
presidential government are those in which the president´s party does not control the
median legislator in congress, the president lacks effective veto power, and majority or
median minority executive coalitions are not formed. Preliminary evidence to sustain this
hypothesis is provided with data on interrupted Latin American presidencies in the period
1980-2002.
regimes and a series of hypotheses about inter-branch cooperation based on whether or not
the party of the president controls the pivotal legislators necessary to pass a bill or sustain a
veto. Section III analyzes the frequency at which majority coalitions or coalitions including
4
the median party in congress are formed in each type of government. In section IV, the
level of inter-branch conflict in new Latin American democracies is tested using data on the
early termination of a presidential term. I conclude by indicating the lines of research that
The separate origin and survival of presidents and assemblies has been the source of
most radical of them was initially proposed by Linz (1990, 1994) and other ‘critics’ of
presidentialism (Valenzuela 1994; Skach and Stepan 1994; Linz and Stepan 1996), who
argued that separate elections and fix terms induce inter-institutional conflict and make
difficult if not impossible the resolution of political crises. According to this view, the
‘fusion’ of powers induced by the logic of parliamentary constitutions is, under all political
In response to Linz and his colleagues, a new literature originated in the work of Shugart
and Carey (1992) and followed by a series of influential studies (Mainwaring 1993; Jones
1995: Mainwaring and Shugart 1997) proposed that not all presidential regimes are equally
problematic from the point of view of good governance. In particular, the so-called
when the ‘right’ electoral system, by containing party fragmentation, provides them with
partisan majorities in congress.1 For this literature, then, the problem is not presidentialism
per se but the ‘difficult’ combination of presidentialism and multipartysm that breeds weak
1
From this perspective, the ‘right’ combination of electoral variables is a president elected by plurality rule,
legislators elected by party-list PR with moderate district magnitudes and concurrent electoral cycles for the
election of presidents and assemblies. See Shugart and Carey (1992), Jones (1995), and Mainwaring and
Shugart (1997).
5
necessarily a better option than presidentialism, at least not than the majority type.
A new turn in the study of the comparative performance of constitutional regimes took
place after the large statistical study developed by Przewroski et al. (2000), which showed
that presidential regimes are indeed more vulnerable than parliamentary ones to democratic
breakdown. This means that there might be something wrong either with separation of
However, neither this study nor those that followed from it (Cheibub 2002; Cheibub and
Limongi 2002, Cheibub, Przeworski, and Saiegh 2002 ) provide much more than a list of
‘negative’ findings to explain the relatively low survival of presidential regimes. On the one
hand, Cheibub (2002) challenges the conventional wisdom that presidentialism and
multipartym is the worst combination for democratic stability by showing that minority
presidencies, even when they present conditions for deadlock, do not affect the survival of
democracy. 2 On the other hand, Cheibub, Przeworski, and Saiegh (2002) show that single-
party minority governments are not less effective than majority or minority coalition
governments and that the survival of presidential democracies is not affected by whether or
not presidents fail to generate coalitions. So far, the only explanations advanced for the
instability of presidential democracy are three, rather disparate hypotheses: the existence of
three relatively equal political parties, the frequency of presidential term limits, and
2
He also indicates, however, that the survival of presidential democracies may be correlated with moderate
rather than with extreme levels of party fractionalization.
6
In spite of the significant progress made during the last decade, the main problem with the
current research on presidential regimes is that it still uses too crude a measure, namely the
presidential government and make predictions about their performance. The most glaring
almost all definitions, presidential government is ‘unified’ when the president´s party holds
more and ‘divided’ when it holds less than 50 percent of seats in congress (or in one
chamber, for bicameral assemblies).3 But while the concept of unified presidential
One could expect, for instance, that if the president´s party is centrally located in the policy
legislative majority even if that party controls only a minority of congressional seats. In
other words, although opposition parties formally control the legislative process they may
be unable to agree on a policy different from the one proposed by the executive. A second
possible situation is that of a non-median minority president, but with an effective veto.
This reactive power could be skillfully used to forge tacit legislative coalitions on different
pieces of legislation that neither the president´s nor opposition parties have the power to
approve without mutual support. Finally, a non-median minority president, even without a
veto, may still be able to govern with relative effectiveness through an executive coalition
holding a majority of seats or including the median party in congress. Obviously enough,
one cannot derive the same consequences from all these forms of government.
3
Perhaps only Shugart (1995) departs from this conventional definition to restrict the term ‘ divided’
government to situations in which a party different from the president´s control more than 50 percent of the
seats in congress. As we will see later, this corresponds to the notion of ‘unified congressional’ government
that I propose below.
7
Since the size of the president´s party in congress is related to the number of parties holding
seats in congress, different authors also use the effective number of congressional parties to
explain the dynamics of minority governments. The typical statement here is that as
fractionalization increases, the size of the president´s party decreases thus making more
making and maintaining majority executive coalitions (Mainwaring 1993, Jones 1995).
This association, however, does not amount to a real explanation of the relation between
compare two situations, one where a few large parties hold most of legislative seats and
another where many small parties hold a relatively equal share of seats.
Suppose that in the first situation the party of the president is located at the extreme left,
holding 40 percent of the seats, and that the main opposition party is a center-right party
holding 50 percent of the seats, followed by a small rightist party, with 10 percent of the
seats. The effective number of legislative parties here is 2.4. In the second situation, while
the party of the president is a centrist party holding 30 percent of the seats the 3 opposition
parties are distributed as follows: one in the center-left, holding 25 percent, one in the
center-right also with 25 percent, and one in the right with 20 percent. The effective
number of parties here is 3.9. Clearly enough, inter-branch cooperation should be extremely
more difficult in the first situation, even though the level of fractionalization is low.
This analysis indicates that any hypothesis or explanation about the consequences of
minority presidential government should start by taking into account not only the share of
seats of the president´s party in congress or the effective number of legislative parties but
also the location of the former in the policy space. I turn to this task in the next section.
8
Using a modified version of Krehbiel´s model of pivotal politics (1996, 1998), it is possible
three decisive actors: the president´s party (PP), the veto party (VP) and the median party
(MP) in congress (Colomer and Negretto 2003). PP is the party that controls the executive
office, VP is the party that controls the legislator whose support is crucial to override a
possible presidential veto, and MP is the party that controls the median legislator, that is,
the legislator whose proposals gather the support of a legislative majority. The central
The central or single dimension of policy is assumed to be here the position of parties
regarding state intervention in the economy and the adoption of redistributive social
policies, where parties on the left support more and parties on the right support less state
intervention and redistributive policies, with parties on the center advocating a moderate
position. That preferences are single-peaked means that each player has an ideal point in
the policy space so that utility never increases as policies move away (in any direction)
from the player’s ideal point. The assumption of disciplined parties, in turn, means that the
median and veto legislators are expected to vote according to the policy position of the
party they represent in the legislature. The absence of an agenda-setter means, in turn, that
no special procedures give any player an advantage to get his or her proposals approved. I
will later show the different predictions one can obtain by changing this assumption.
Following this model, one can distinguish three basic forms of government in separation-
‘presidential’ government occurs whenever the president's party has the support of both the
9
veto and the median legislator. This form of government logically includes two possible
situations. One, which can properly be defined as ‘unified’ presidential government, derives
from an election in which the president´s party obtained more than 50 percent of the seats
in the assembly. The other, which can be labeled ‘median’ presidential government, takes
place whenever the president's party, even with less than 50 percent of legislative seats, is
While unified presidential government is usually the result of plurality formulas to elect
presidents and concurrent electoral cycles (Mainwaring and Shugart 1997), there is in
principle no institutional variable that guarantee that the president´s party, short of a
legislative majority, will be the median party in congress.4 The effective number of
legislative parties (ENP), which may be affected by electoral rules, is obviously related to
the location of presidential governments in one or the other category. While unified
presidential government is more likely when the effective number of legislative parties
approach a two-party setting (e.g. ENP 1.8-2.4), median presidential government is more
[Figure 1 here]
is no doubt that, other things being equal, a president whose party controls by itself a
majority of legislators should be more able than minority presidents to implement most of
4
According to Colomer (2001) and Colomer and Negretto (2003), majority runoff elections for president
result in the selection of median candidates in a higher proportion than in plurality elections. This does not
mean, however, that the party of the president would be in those cases the median party in congress. The
reason is that there may be more parties competing in the congressional election than parties presenting
candidates in the presidential election so that the medians in both election do not necessarily coincide.
10
his agenda with very little cost in terms of inter-branch negotiation. Thus the allure of
unified presidential government among many scholars. Nevertheless, if the analytic model
here presented holds, one should expect a minority president whose party is centrally
located in the policy space to be also more effective and face less executive-legislative
minority governments in parliamentary regimes (Strom 1990; Laver and Schofield 1990).
As Laver and Schofield point out (1990: 80), even in a regime that by definition requires
a viable government if there is no majority coalition of opposition parties which can defeat
its proposals. If we apply this logic to presidential regimes, it is possible to argue that a
median presidential government should have a record of legislative success and democratic
Figure 2 shows what in strict sense we can call ´divided’ presidential government, that is, a
situation where the president´s party controls the veto legislator but a party other than the
president´s has the support of the median legislator in congress. Whenever elections are not
decisive in the sense of providing the same party with control over the presidency and the
parties in the legislature and by the majorities required to override a presidential veto. In
particular, the probability of having a divided government should increase as the effective
number of legislative parties is equal or above 3 and the president can sustain a veto with
[Figure 2 here]
This definition of divided government is closely associated to the notion of ´deadlock’ that
many authors use (Przeworski et al; Cheibub 2002). This is so because it is precisely in this
type of government that a party (or parties) other than the president´s may gather a majority
to pass legislation and still be unable to change the status quo if the president prefers the
latter to the new policy and the legislative majority lacks the necessary votes to override his
veto. In other words, neither the president (who lacks a majority) nor the opposition parties
(who lack the votes to override a veto) are able to rule. The risk of a stalemate, of course,
is the reason why this type of presidential regime is often supposed to constitute the most
undecisive, costly, and conflictive form of minority government. But this association lacks
theoretical foundations.
The occurrence of gridlock under divided government depends on the location of the
legislative status quo and the policy preferences of the pivotal actors, in this case, the
president´s (or veto) party and the median party (Krehbiel 1998). If the initial status-quo
policy is located in between the preferences of the median party and the president with
effective veto, policy changes may be, in effect, impossible. The president will veto any
change approaching the outcome to the median party’s preference and moving it away from
the presidential one. It is for this reason that the policy space between the two decisive
actors defines the 'gridlock interval', that is, the set of policy decisions that will be stable in
spite of the existence of a legislative majority favoring policy change –as illustrated in
Figure 2.
But whenever the legislative status quo is outside the gridlock interval, policy change is
still possible. If the legislative status quo is located at a rather extreme position with respect
12
to the ideal points of the decisive actors, policy change may occur at exactly the ideal point
of the median party. This is so because the president will not veto proposals made by the
median party if they are closer to his preferences than the status quo is. In addition, if the
legislative status quo is outside the gridlock interval but closer to the preferences of the
president than the ideal point of the median party is, policy change is also possible if the
median party moderates its proposal to make the president at least indifferent between
using the veto or signing the bill. As Cameron (2000) point out, whenever the president
has an incentive to veto policy changes and congress knows it, the latter will anticipate the
veto and modify the content of the new policy to head it off.
Presidents will support policy change when the new policy brings them more utility than
the status quo does and also when the legislative majority, anticipating a veto, modifies
This does not mean, of course, that we should expect from divided government the same
less legislative change and at higher cost than a minority but median presidential
time to time and, in the absence of perfect information among the players, inter-branch
conflict as well. The central point is simply that looking at divided government as the worst
possible situation for minority presidents may be looking at the wrong place.
separation-of-powers system is that where a party different from the president´s controls
both the median and the veto legislator. To keep symmetry with the previous concepts we
13
can call this form of government ‘congressional’, which just like the ‘presidential’ one,
may include two possible situations. One, which we can call ‘unified congressional’, takes
place when a party different from the president´s controls not only 50 percent of the seats in
congress but also the number of seats necessary to override a presidential veto. This form of
government is likely to occur in two-party systems with a low veto override, usually an
absolute majority.5 A second situation, which we can call ‘median congressional’, is that
where the policy position of an opposition party allows it to control the veto and the median
legislator, even without having a majority of its own. This form of government is more
[Figure 3 here]
separation-of-powers system. Not only the president has no control over the medial
legislator but he also lacks an effective veto. For this reason, everything else being equal,
one should expect congressional government to be less decisive and more conflictive than
In Table I, I have listed the types of government that according to this classification have
existed in 18 Latin American countries since the last inauguration of a democratic regime.
Within each country, presidencies are classified according to the legislative share of the
president´s party and its policy location vis-à-vis the location of the median and the veto
5
As we will see, the only two cases of unified congressional government in Latin America since the
beginning of the transition to democracy were the presidencies of Betancourt from 1982-86 and Pastrana from
1998-2002 in Colombia, a country that gathers the two characteristics just mentioned.
14
of these relative positions, the correspondent years of the presidency are counted as a
different case. According to this methodology, the table gathers 97 cases, of which 33
presidencies located in the median, divided, and congressional category represents a clear
[Table I here]
It is important to note how this classification of presidential regimes, and the predictions
one can obtain from it, differs from the conventional analysis based on the levels of party
fragmentation. In the first place, as I noted before, it is not simply the ENP but the veto
Both Chile under Alwyn (1989-94) and Perú under Fujimori I (1990-92) had an ENP in the
Lower House above 5. However, while the Chilean constitution requires 2/3 of the vote in
each chamber to override a presidential veto, in Perú congress could override a veto with
only a majority of votes in each chamber. Thus the classification of Chile´s Alwyn as
divided and Perú´s Fujimori I as congressional government. On the other hand, Colombia
under Betancourt (1982-86), and Pastrana (1998-2002) had an ENP in the Lower Chamber
of 1.97 and 2.09, respectively. However, since the president´s party did not reach a majority
of seats and the constitution required a majority of votes to override a veto, a party different
from the president´s was able to control the law-making process thus creating a unified
congressional government. Table II shows the relation between ENP, veto strength and
[Table II here]
Perhaps more important is the fact that even if we hold constant the ENP and veto override
rules within one country, presidencies may still differ according to the policy location of
the decisive players. Bolivia is the case in point. Both during the presidencies of Paz
Estenssoro and Siles Suazo the ENP in the Lower Chamber was above 4 and the
Nevertheless, while Paz Estenssoro´s MNR occupied the position of the median party in
congress, Siles Suazo´s UDP had a rather extreme location in the policy space and
possessed only a veto to negotiate with the opposition. Logically, one cannot expect the
same consequences from these two very different cases of presidential governance.
In the previous section I have argued that, other things being equal, congressional
government should be expected to be the least decisive and most conflictive form of
all them implying the same negative consequences for democratic governance.
A non-median minority president who also lacks an effective veto has two basic options:
would usually take the form of a coalitional government in which non-median presidents
congressional rule, instead, would usually take the form of unilateral presidential
16
government, either by using powers granted by the constitution, like decrees, or by extra-
constitutional actions, like the usurpation of legislative powers or the irregular dissolution
rule that congressional government should be the most problematic form of government in
a separation-of-powers system.
In order to explain this choice, we need to take a step back and look more closely at the
more general problem of coalition-making under presidential regimes.6 The separate origin
and survival of presidents and assemblies creates several structural differences between the
regimes. In the first place, whereas in a presidential regime the constitution establishes that
the president is the formateur regardless of the representation of his party in congress and
its policy location, in a parliamentary regime the formateur is usually the largest and/or the
median legislative party (Laver and Schofield 1990). In addition, while the autonomy of
regime cabinets are strictly dependent on legislative support to obtain investiture and win
confidence votes. These differences, should and do make coalition governments a more
frequent event under parliamentarism than under presidentialism (Samuels and Eaton 2002;
Within presidential regimes, however, one should expect variations in the frequency and
nature of coalitions depending on the type of government. Table III shows these variations
according to whether an executive coalition is formed, whether the party members of the
coalition hold together a majority of seats in congress, and whether a minority coalition
6
On cabinet coalitions in presidential regimes, see Deheza (1997), Amorim Neto (1998), Altman (2001),
Chasquetti (2001), and Amorim Neto (2001).
17
includes the median party in congress.7 An executive (or government) coalition is defined
here as the set of legislators belonging to parties that hold cabinet positions. This coalition
is considered to be a majority coalition only if the parties holding cabinet posts gather a
majority of seats in one chamber for unicameral assemblies or in both chambers for
bicameral assemblies.
As one would expect, Table III shows that the frequency of executive coalition formation is
the lowest in unified presidential government (.22). The reason is that in this category,
obviously, presidents do not need outside support to accomplish their agendas. One of the
frequent reasons why presidents form coalitions in spite of the fact that their parties have
Colombian presidents who continued the practice initiated with the National Front (1958-
Among the different categories of ‘minority’ presidents, the lowest percentage of coalitions
governments. In 2 out of 18 cases (.11), the presidencies of Alwyn (1989-94) and Frei
(1994-200) in Chile minority coalitions included the median party, but only for the
Chamber of Deputies.8 This case is not immediately intuitive but it may fit the logic of
divided government explained above. Since in this situation minority presidents have a
7
The presidencies of Pérez Balladares and Moscoso in Panamá were excluded due to the absence of
information.
8
The median position in the senate has been consistently occupied since 1989 by the RN, which for obvious
ideological reasons can never be part of a center-left executive coalition.
18
weapon (the veto) to force concessions from legislative majorities, they might not need an
executive coalition to influence policy. At the same time, it may be the case that in divided
government opposition parties also lack the incentives to give explicit support to the
moderate in divided government, the median party (by definition the party whose support is
necessary to provide the president with the support of a legislative majority) may be one of
the main opposition parties which needs to differentiate its position from the government in
In median presidential governments coalitions are formed with a relatively high frequency
of 52 percent for coalitions in general and 38 percent for majority coalitions. A minority
president whose party controls the median legislator in congress may form a single-party
government and still be able to obtain majority support in congress. For the same reason,
however, a median president has nothing to lose in terms of policy and may actually obtain
some electoral benefit (in terms of public image, for instance) by incorporating outside
parties to the executive coalition. Opposition parties, in turn, may derive some utility from
office by supporting policies that they would approve anyway. This is precisely the
argument used in parliamentary regimes to explain why a median minority party, knowing
it will be dominant in policy terms, may either chose to form a single-party government, a
Congressional government, in turn, is the minority government with the highest number of
coalitions. In 20 out 23 cases (.87) presidents in this category ruled through executive
coalitions. Given that congressional government on average occurs at relatively high levels
of party fragmentation, this result clearly shows that, against a previously held belief in the
literature, neither coalitions are rare in minority governments nor party fragmentation
19
coalitions seem clear in the case of congressional government: neither their parties have a
pivotal role in policy-making nor they have an instrument, like the veto, to shape
legislation. At the same time, given the presence of many small parties in this type of
government it may be that parties in the opposition also have an interest in joining the
government either because they have no chance of winning coming presidential elections or
because even if they win, they will not be able to govern alone.
Yet, although most minority presidents in this category managed to incorporate outside
parties in the cabinet, not all them forged coalitions that would make congressional
government viable in policy terms. Of the 23 cases, only 9 (.39) presidents managed to
form a majority coalition. In addition, in 1 case (.04), the presidency of Lagos (2000-06) in
Chile, a minority coalition included the median party, but only in the Chamber of
Deputies. The obvious question, then, is why some presidents in congressional government
One possible answer is that not all presidents in this situation (regardless of the incentives
of opposition parties) may have the same incentives to rely on outside support to govern.
One of the assumptions of the pivotal model of decision-making outlined above was that no
player has special agenda-setting powers. In reality, however, many presidents do have
these powers and they can used them to change legislation without sufficient legislative
support. This is the case, in particular, with the ability of presidents to issue decrees of
legislative content. These powers may allow non-median minority presidents to change the
legislative status quo and impose a new policy if the median party in congress prefers the
latter to the reversionary outcome, that is, the outcome that would result from rejecting the
9
Cheibub, Przewroski and Saiegh (2002) show a similar finding.
20
decree after it produced effects (Figueiredo and Limongi 1998; Negretto forthcoming). If
this is the case, then, a president invested with these powers may not feel the need to rely
At the same time, the incentives of presidents to make viable coalitions may also be
cabinets. In spite of the separate origin of presidents and assemblies that characterizes
presidential regimes, there is wide range of variation in terms of congressional control over
cabinets (Shugart and Carey 1992; Colomer and Negretto 2003). A president who has the
formal power to appoint and remove cabinet members may be in fact restricted in his
degree of autonomy if legislators are able to vote a binding censure or impeach ministers
by majority vote. The same could happen if in the absence of majority winners in a
With these elements in mind, we can make sense of the choice that minority presidents in a
building a portfolio coalition large enough to muster majority support in congress should be
greater when presidents are subject to congressional control and have no decree powers
than when they face no congressional control and/or have decree powers.10 Table IV lists
relevant institutional variables for each case. A president was considered to have decree
powers if the constitution explicitly grants him the authority to initiate policy by decree
(constitutional decree authority or CDA) or when general emergency provisions include the
capacity of presidents to make law and regulate rights by decree. A congress was
10
Amorim Neto and Tafner (2002) and Amorim Neto (2002) show that there is a relation between the use and
existence of decree powers and coalition-making strategies.
21
considered to have control over cabinets when presidents are selected by congress or when
legislators from opposition parties had the necessary votes established by the constitution to
[Table IV here]
According to this table, a large majority of 18, out of 23 presidents in the category of
congressional government had the capacity to issue decrees of legislative content. Only 6
(.26) of these presidents formed policy viable coalitions while 13 of them (.56) either did
Uruguay) presidents were both subject to congressional control and had no decree powers.
This analysis cannot conclusive since too many presidents in this category hold explicit or
residual decree powers. In fact, there may be a causal relation between minority presidents
however, it may be the frequent presence of decree powers what explains why if the
To sum up, not all minority presidents inevitably need a majority coalition to influence
policy and secure a minimum of inter-branch cooperation. Some minority presidents can
11
Opposition parties usually reach the necessary votes to control cabinets when the constitution requires a
vote by absolute majority in congress but congressional control could also exist with a requirement of two-
thirds if the president lacks the support of more than one-third of legislators.
12
The existence of a correlation between CDA and separation of purpose in presidential regimes has been
indicated by Shugart (1998) and Shugart and Haggard (2001).
22
compensate their lack of majority support with their control over the median legislator in
congress or with their veto power. Coalition-making, however, may be crucial for minority
presidents in congressional government and those who fail to do so in this category are
There are several possible indicators to test the hypothesis that minority presidencies are
different in nature and present different potential for government effectiveness and
initiated by presidents and approved by congress is one possible indicator (Saiegh 2002).
For executive-legislative conflict, one could construct an index to measure the number of
conflict (Jones 1995). However, in the absence of these data for all the presidencies within
the period under consideration I will provisionally rely on a more crude but nonetheless
Presidents may end their constitutional terms prematurely either because they are ousted
from office after a successful impeachment process, because they are forced to resign after
because they decide to dissolve congress as a way to govern effectively in the face of a
particular crisis. Within the third wave of democracy in Latin America, there are 11 cases
[Table V here]
In 4 cases (Collor, Pérez, Bucaram, and Cubas), presidencies were terminated in the context
(Suazo) in the context of a series of executive-legislative conflicts that included the threat
and De la Rúa) due to social mobilizations against the government and 1 time (Mahuad)
due to an attempted coup. Finally, in 3 cases (Fujimori, Serrano and Chávez) presidents
terminated their terms by their own decision to rule without the existing congress, although
In spite of these variations, the premature termination of a presidential term signals the
breakdown of cooperation between presidents and congresses. Whatever the nature of the
crisis that presidents and legislators had to face, it seems clear that either congress or the
president saw the potential solution in the elimination of the other. From this perspective,
the forced resignation or impeachment of presidents, on the one hand, or the dissolution of
According to the hypothesis presented in this paper presidential regimes can be located in a
governments and the minimum to congressional governments without majority (or median
divided, and coalitional congressional government. In order to support this hypothesis, one
should see some correlation between expected levels of cooperation and the number of
24
correlation.
[Table VI here]
As expected, unified presidential government has the lowest (.03) and minority
This does not necessarily mean that coalitional congressional government is free from
conflicts but, rather, that the difference between having or not the support of a majority or
median coalition is crucial when the president does not have a veto or control the median
legislator in congress. So crucial, indeed, that it may turn the most problematic form of
did finish their terms in office also presented high levels of executive-legislative conflict
that could have ended in the same way as those who did not. The presidencies of Febres
Cordero, Borja (for the period 1990-92), and Durán-Ballén in Ecuador are all well-known
All of these presidents intended to alleviate Ecuador´s fiscal crisis and debt problems by
those policies, opposition legislators continuously harassed the president through the
25
impeachment of his ministers (Conaghan 1995: 452-53; Isaacs 1996). In fact, in the last
year of Borja´s presidency, congress formally requested the Supreme Court to initiate
impeachment procedures against the president himself and in 1995 (after the censure of
responded with a failed attempt to call a constitutional reform to strengthen the powers of
Other presidencies in this category also present similar indicators of conflict. President
Pastrana, á la Chávez, intended but failed to call a referendum on constitutional reform that
included cutting the number of congressional seats by half and calling new congressional
engaged in a bitter conflict that included a threat by congress to impeach the president.
During his first presidency, Caldera faced permanent obstruction from congress and
institutional attacks that eventually led to a constitutional crisis when the opposition
approved a law depriving the president from his participation in the nomination of judges
(Coppedge 1994: 339).13 In his second presidency, Caldera decided to face the deep
economic crisis affecting the country by suspending economic rights and implementing
economic measures by decree (Crisp 2000). Once congress attempted to restore those
rights, it was forced to back down by Caldera’s threat to call a referendum on a proposal of
less dramatic measures of conflict than the early termination of a constitutional term, we
13
Accodring to Coppedge (1994: 339), those institutional attacks included at one point AD´s attempt to
change the presidential regime into a parliamentary one.
14
See Latin America Weekly Report, 11/08/94
26
would probably find that the number of critical cases within minority congressional
government is much larger than the one presented here. This calls, of course, for a
Conclusions
Since the early 1990’s, the idea that presidential regimes are inherently unstable has been
presidentialism, multipartysm, and low levels of party discipline what affects government´s
most research on presidentialism has focused since then on the electoral variables that are
The ‘difficult combination’ hypothesis is today under attack by a series of studies that
survival and point out to other variables, such as presidential term limits or the degree of
date, however, no study has provided a plausible and theoretically grounded explanation of
the causal mechanisms that foster or hinder cooperation between executives and legislators
This paper is a first attempt to elaborate such an explanation. I have argued that different
forms of presidential government should be distinguished taking into account not only the
size of the president´s party in congress but also its location in the policy space and its
relation with two pivotal actors: the median and the veto legislator. Following this logic, I
proposed that there is a continuum from more to less expected cooperation between
27
presidents and assemblies that goes from unified presidential to congressional government,
with minority median and divided government in between. I have also suggested that
congressional government is the least effective and most conflictive form of minority
government only when presidents fail or do not attempt to build executive coalitions
In order to test this hypothesis, I used the constitutional (impeachment, forced resignation)
institutional conflict between presidents and assemblies and found that the hypothesis,
although not probed, is at least plausible. Of the 11 presidents that left office before the
term specified in the constitution, the largest percentage corresponded to the predicted most
conflictive category. Although the number of cases was small, no constitutional term was
The analysis provided in this paper suggests that research on presidential democracies
should shift from its exclusive focus on electoral variables affecting the effective number of
parties to the electoral and institutional variables that make cooperation between branches
possible in the absence of a legislative majority supporting the president in congress. In this
respect, a new research agenda should pay attention to the electoral formulas that make
more likely than others the selection of presidents whose parties occupy a median position
in congress, the influence of presidential vetoes on policy output, and the interaction
between the proactive legislative powers of presidents and congressional control over
Outcome
President’s party
Gridlock interval
Outcome
Table I (cont.)
Median
Argentina 1989-95 (Menem I)
Argentina 1997-99 (Menem II)
Bolivia 1985-89 (P- Estenssoro)
Bolivia 1993-97 (S. De Lozada)
Costa Rica 1958-62 (Echandi)
Costa Rica 1974-78 (Oduber Q.)
Costa Rica 1994-98 (Figueras)
Dom. Rep. 1996-98 (F. Reyna)
Ecuador 1979-84 (Roldós/Hurtado)
Ecuador 1988-90 (R. Borja)
Ecuador 1992-96 (A. Bucaram)
Honduras 2001-05 (Maduro)
Mexico 1997-2000 (Zedillo)
Nicaragua 1996-2001 (Alemán)
Panamá 1994-99 (P. Balladares)
Perú 1980-85 (Belaúnde)
Perú 2000-05 (Toledo)
Uruguay 1984-89 (Sanguinetti)
Uruguay 1994-99 (Sanguinetti)
Uruguay 1999-2004(Battle)
Venezuela 1963-68 (Leoni)
Venezuela 1988-93 (Andrés Pérez II)
Total presidential= 55
Source: elaborated by the author, in collaboration with Josep Colomer, based on “Elections
around the world”(URL:http://www.electionworld.org),and Jorge A. Schiavon
(URL:http://www.cide.edu/investigadores/jorge_schiavon/electoral.html),for electoral data,
and Coppedge (1997), for party policy positions
31
Source: Elaborated by the author based on Zucco (2002) and Cidob.com for coalitions, and Political Data
Base of the Americas for decree powers and congressional control
*CDA restricted to budget
Total cases=23
Cases with executive coalition= 20
Cases with majority or median minority coalition=10
32
Bibliography
Amorim Neto, Octavio.1998. “Of Presidents, Parties and Ministers: Cabinet Formation and
Legislative Decision-Making Under Separation of Powers.” Unpublished PhD
dissertation, University of California, San Diego
_____________________.2002.”Presidential Policy-Making Strategies and Cabinet
Formation in Latin America´s Presidential Democracies, 1946-1995. Paper
presented at the conference on “El Gobierno Dividido en México: Riesgos y
Oportunidades,”May 6-7. 2002, C.I.D.E, Mexico City
Amorim Neto, Octavio y Paulo Tafner. (2002). “Governos de Coalizao e Mecanismos de Alarme e
Incendio no Controle Legislativo das Medidas Provisorias.” Dados, 45 (1), 5-38
Cameron, Charles M. 2000. Veto Bargaining. Presidents and the Politics of Negative
Powers. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
Carey, John y Matthew S. Shugart. 1998 eds. Executive Decree Authority. Nueva York:
Cambridge University Press.
Chasquetti, Daniel. 2001. “Democracia, Multipartidismo, y Coaliciones en América Latina:
Evaluando la Difícil Combinación.”In Jorge Lanzaro (ed.), Tipos de
Presidencialismo y Coaliciones Políticas en América Latina. Buenos Aires:
CLACSO.
Cheibub, José Antonio.2002. “Minority Presidents, Deadlock Situations, and the Survival
of Presidential Democracies.”Unpublished manuscript, Yale University.
Cheibub, José Antonio, Adam Przeworski, and Sebastían Saiegh. 2002. “Government
Coalitions and Legislative Effectiveness Under Presidentialism and
Parliamentarism, unpublished manuscript.
Cheibub, José Antonio, and Fernando Limongi. 2002. “Modes of Government Formation
and the Survival of Presidential Regimes: Presidentialism and Parliamentarism
Reconsidered.”Annual Review of Political Science.
Colomer, Josep and Gabriel Negretto. 2003. “Governanza con Poderes Divididos en
América Latina.” Política y Gobierno, January-March.
Conaghan, Catherine M. 1995. “Politicians Against Parties: Discord and Disconnection in
Ecuador’s Party System.” In Scott Mainwaring and Timothy Scully. Building
Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America, Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Coppedge, Michael. 1994. “Venezuela: Democratic despite Presidentialism,” in Juan Linz
and Arturo Valenzuela (eds.). The Failure of Presidential Democracy. Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins University Press.
______________ 1997. “A Classification of Latin American Political Parties.” Working
Paper #244, Kellog Institute, University of Notre Dame.
Crisp, Brian. 2000. Democratic Institutional Design: The Powers and Incentives of
Venezuelan Politicians and Interest Groups. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Deheza, Grace Ivana. 1998. “Gobiernos de coalición en el sistema presidencial: America
del Sur,” in Dieter Nohlen and Mario Fernández (eds.). El presidencialismo
renovado: Institucionalismo y cambio político en America Latina. Caracas: nueva
Sociedad: 151-169.
35
Strom, Kaare. 1990. Minority Government and Majority Rule. Cambridge, Mass.:
Cambridge University Press.