|
|
|
|
|
|
by adrian_b
144 days ago
|
|
|
This is one of many reasons why presidential systems are bad. 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. |
|
|
It is perhaps a consequence of some of the ways in which Presidential systems are suboptimal, but I don't think it is itself a way that they are bad. If you had a Presidential system and changed nothing else but making failure to pass a budget on a set timeline an election trigger, it would make things generally worse, not better, except maybe if the regular election interval was intolerably long to start with (in which case it would maybe be incidentally weakly, indirectly positive.