Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by epolanski 34 days ago
I have long come to the conclusion, backed by data, that presidential and semi-presidential systems are deeply flawed.

There's a reason why not a single country turning authoritarian in the last 50 years has been a representative parliamentary democracy. The last one has been Sri Lanka in the 70s. Not a single one since then.

Electing single individuals to power instead of parties and coalitions is a terrible idea.

They are all, and I want to emphasize all, presidential or semi presidential. From Belarus to the Philippines, from Russia to Nicaragua, from Turkey to Tunisia the list is entirely composed by presidential or semi presidential republics.

There are several reasons why this happens, and why it tends to kill pluralism and proper democracy with winner-takes-all mechanics (which also tends to aggregate people across very few/two parties).
1 comments
graemep 34 days ago
> The last one has been Sri Lanka in the 70s

Sri Lanka did not become authoritarian in the 70s. It did adopt a presidential system.

link
epolanski 34 days ago
It did, under Bandaranaike.

In 1971 the government declared an unlawful state of emergency that stayed in force for 6 years suspending civil liberties, suppressing press freedom and giving the executive wide powers. The constitution was updated, by the parliament, the same constitution prolonged the current government mandate for two years without elections.

What you're talking about are the events of 1978.

And, as you probably know, during the 80s, that presidential and authoritarian shift only got worse.

But my point stands, 1970s Sri Lanka, is still to date, the last parliamentary republic to turn authoritarian. Didn't cite this randomly.

link
graemep 34 days ago
In 1971 there was an insurrection that nearly succeeded in overthrowing the government so the emergency was initially justified.

I think we have different definition of authoritarian: yours is broader. Sri Lanka did continue to have elections and changes of government even at its worst, but I would only call it authoritarian in the period when there was clearly a lack of freedom of the press (when journalists risked being disappeared).

My definition strengthens your point as by that time Sri Lanka had a presidential system.

link