Until recently, the development of Chilean democracy between 1932 and 1970 was regarded as a success story, at least by Third World standards. For during this period there was a major expansion of political participation combined with ever more systematic attempts to deal with the root cause of economic underdevelopment. As industry became more diversified and government policy on copper and other natural resources became more coherent, there was also a serious attempt, through an agrarian reform, to tackle the problem of low productivity in the agricultural sector.

Political stability had facilitated the development of a large network of state institutions that played a prominent role in promoting economic development. Over the years, these institutions had made it possible to combine the implementation of imaginative socioeconomic reforms with a sustained process of political and electoral mobilization. This process had not only strengthened the legitimacy of the political system, but had helped generate among political leaders an unbounded confidence in the possibility of achieving socioeconomic change through the existing institutional framework.

One feature of Chile's political system that had gone largely unnoticed by specialists was its presidential system of government. However, the collapse of democracy in 1973, which prompted many scholars to reflect upon the reasons for the breakdown, also brought about a renewed interest in this feature of the political system.

Some of the most stimulating contributions to the study of political transitions have come from scholars who, until recently, have concentrated on the study of the breakdown of democracy: in particular, Linz (1978), Linz and Stepan (1978), and Valenzuela (1978).