That is true, but as I said, political stability is not tied to government. But that's not where I was going with that. Like I said, part of the reason why the Old Republic was the way it was because it exacerbated the political instability due to the nature of how it came to power (through a coup against a largely popular institution that is the monarchy), and coupled with the power only benefiting a particular group (in this case the agrarian, in particular the coffee, oligarchs and the senior army officers.) I'm not saying that the monarchy made it stable, I'm saying that the reason why Brazil went unstable was largely because of the nature of how the new government came to power.
As a matter of fact Spain is a perfect example because Spain was not stable throughout the 19th century, largely because Revolutionary/Napoleonic France exacerbated the tensions between the Reactionary Conservatism and Enlightenment Liberalism, which was not helped by the mismanagement of Isabel II and her officials, nor the Carlists, nor the very chaotic First Spanish Republic.
As a matter of fact Spain is a perfect example because Spain was not stable throughout the 19th century, largely because Revolutionary/Napoleonic France exacerbated the tensions between the Reactionary Conservatism and Enlightenment Liberalism, which was not helped by the mismanagement of Isabel II and her officials, nor the Carlists, nor the very chaotic First Spanish Republic.