Now that we have taken a somewhat closer look at the legislative institutions set up by the Constitution of 1980, we require a more detailed map of the ideological terrain. The impact of institutions such as the president's insistence powers, and his “constructive” veto powers, which enable him or her to offer amendments along with his or her vetos, depends on how cohesive the president's legislative coalition is. Can we treat the president's opponents in the Senate as a single unitary actor, or do they differ in their degree of opposition? Likewise, will the Concertación Senators rubber stamp all presidential initiatives, or does the president have to adjust his or her proposals to secure their support? The same institutional structure that permits a president supported by pliant majorities in both chambers to dominate the legislative process can leave that president frustrated when faced by determined and unified opposition in even one chamber. This means that we must be very careful when making broad statements about “executive dominance” and autocratic tendencies written into a constitution. This dominance can be very sensitive to the composition of the legislature and the objectives of the executive.

Measuring the ideological positions taken by competing political parties is difficult. Party manifestos and campaign literature typically reveal that all of the political parties favor prosperity, efficient government, safe streets, good schools, and high ethical standards, while all are opposed to crime, unemployment, and corruption.