The first party struggles to seize power in a country that was born at the end of the War of Independence. Liberals, conservatives and politics in the formation of Peru. During the decades that followed Independence, Peru was left in ruins by incessant civil wars. In the political chaos of the nineteenth century, the division between conservatives and liberals was the most visible gap. Agustín Gamarra, Antonio Gutiérrez de La Fuente and Felipe Santiago Salaverry were among the leaders of the Conservatives, while José La Mar and Luis José Orbegoso led the Liberals. Although all of them were generals, both groups - and indeed each caudillo - were at the head of political alliances with connections throughout the country. The outline of this division can be traced back to the long War of Independence. The conservatives (often called authoritarians, mainly by their enemies) were the followers of those who had been most reluctant to overthrow Spanish colonialism, while the liberals continued the fight of the most ardent fighters for independence, and those who were in favor of a republic and not of a constitutional monarchy. The most influential politicians of the early years of the Republic (1820-1850) were part of a generation that emerged during Independence. Most of the generals who governed Peru in those years had received their political and military baptism during the war against the Spanish, and many of them had only joined the patriots when the Spanish were already on the verge of defeat. Conservatives favored a strong, centralized state, protectionist trade policies, and the maintenance of corporations and the colonial ethos. Despite the large number of foreign advisers, ideologues and officials in their ranks, the Conservatives were xenophobic. Liberals were vilified for this group's alleged favoritism toward foreigners and because they applied "imported" ideologies that resulted in political chaos. The Liberals, on the other hand, sought a less centralized state with strong restrictions on the power of the president. They were also in favor of a more open trade policy and a drastic reduction in the rights granted to corporations. Even though they were less chauvinistic and militaristic than their conservative counterparts, the liberals did not propose radical social changes. Tulio Halperín noted their "adherence to to a hierarchical image of society... [that] excludes any democratic motive from that first Latin American liberalism." They rebuked the conservatives, accusing them of trying to defend and rebuild colonial structures and of opposing democracy. Although the main leaders of the liberals had an active participation in the Congress, for the fight against the Conservatives depended on the leadership of weak and malleable military leaders like La Mar and Orbegoso. Note, on the other hand, that many of the liberal ideologues were priests.

Nineteenth-century political struggles in Hispanic America did not always follow clear party lines. Some politicians bridged or even crossed back and forth between the conservative and liberal camps. In the Andean zone, the case of Andrés Santa Cruz, who led the Peru-Bolivian Confederation between 1836 and 1839, is particularly noteworthy. He led a strongly centralized conservative state that favored authoritarian policies; however he implemented a liberal trade policy. In fact, Generals Gutiérrez de la Fuente, Santa Cruz, and Gamarra had similar views and political careers, and worked closely together in the late 1820s; however, throughout the 1830s they fought incessantly against each other. Opportunism, as well as uncertainty regarding the nature of republican Peru, help explain why the divisions between the main political groups were often blurred, and the positions of the main caudillos were changing. Thus, the division between different fractions remained fluid and flexibility was a characteristic of the political affiliations of this unstable period. Federalism also complicated the distinction between liberals and conservatives. Gamarra was the head of the conservatives, who had centralist tendencies and whose headquarters were in Lima, although he maintained a strong coalition in Cusco, based on anti-Lima regionalism. Geographically, the Conservatives were based in Lima and on the north coast, while the Liberals were strongest in the south, particularly in Arequipa. However, many individuals, social groups, and even entire regions do not correspond so neatly to this north-south pattern. Furthermore, the Conservatives and the Liberals did not fully control their bases:the Lima Conservatives faced constant opposition from the Lima Liberals—both elite and lower class—while the Andean south was never solidly liberal. Furthermore, the civil wars of the period did not simply pit the south of the Andes against Lima and the north; In this turbulent period, political factions were constantly changing, as people joined and left coalitions and, on the other hand, conservative and liberal platforms also evolved. However, the liberal/conservative opposition constituted the central dividing line, even in the chaotic periods in which several caudillos vied for the presidency.
Taken from the book From Túpac Amaru to Gamarra
Author Charles F. Walker