|
|
|
|
|
by dragonwriter
148 days ago
|
|
> In most other countries in the world, the inability to pass a budget triggers an election. In many parliamentary systems, and some semi-presidential systems this would be likely or automatic. Basically no presidential systems do this, though some have optional safety valves that might be threatened to try to force resolution of a budget deadlock or invoked in response to one, like the muerte cruzada system in Ecuador (which allows the President to dissolve the National Assembly or the Assembly to impeach and remove the President, but either action triggers new elections for both the President and the Assembly.) |
|
I find very strange that the presidential systems claim to be "republics", presumably because most people do not know what a "republic" had previously meant.
The most important principle of the Roman Republic was that it should not be allowed for any important civilian executive function to be occupied by a single human. All major functions should be held by 2 or more humans with equal power, e.g. 2 consuls for the supreme function (because it would be less likely for all of them to agree to do something abusive or illegal).
Only in exceptional circumstances, like war or natural catastrophes, it was fine to temporarily delegate power to a single dictator, to ensure fast decisions.
This principle of the Roman Republic was intended for avoiding the abuses of power, like those typical for kings. There is very little difference between most presidents of countries with presidential systems and absolutist monarchs, even if their function hopefully is not hereditary, but even this is not always true.