The Intrinsic Danger of Presidential Systems of Government

[joe1776]

if I still had my voters manual, I would show you how deceiving it is to the lay voter compared to what you can find in more detailed explanations online.

The wording seems intentionally confusing.

I tried to reply to your Proposition 16 example but you must have deleted it.

 

[Cooky]

I tried to reply to your Proposition 16 example but you must have deleted it.

I deleted it because it was a bad example.

...But I'm with you on what you're saying. I like the Propositions, I just want better transparency in the future.

 

[Ponder This]

Several years ago, I read an article in The Atlantic about the risks and vulnerabilities of presidential systems of government that was quite an eye-opener. The author's thesis was that presidential systems are intrinsically unstable forms of government which tend to rapidly devolve into tyrannies.

In support of his thesis, he offered the fact that all but two of the presidential systems the world has seen have done exactly that -- devolved into tyranny -- within roughly twenty years of their founding. Only the United States and (for the most part) Chile had escaped the fate of the overwhelming majority of presidential systems.

Why were presidential systems so fragile? The author advanced the theory that they promote two party politics, which then is extremely susceptible to gridlock whenever the presidency is controlled by one party, while the legislature is controlled by the other. Finally, if the gridlock becomes entrenched such that the government can no longer operate, people start looking for a 'strong man' (as he called it) to take over in order to get things running again. But of course, the strong man is very likely to soon enough becomes a dictator -- a
president for life with unchecked powers.

Again, he was basically describing what has happened to nearly every presidential system the world has ever seen. But please note: We should not confuse a true presidential system with a parliamentary system in which there is a 'president' at the head of government while real power resides in a prime minister.

The author then turned to the question of why the US had survived for over 200 years, while most presidential systems were lucky to stay out of trouble for 20 years. His answer was that the US had (with the exception of the Civil War period) enjoyed over 200 years during which the two parties agreed on the basics and only argued over less than basic things. In other words, the US had been very lucky.

Given the above, it seems to me quite possible that the intrinsic weakness of presidential systems has at last caught up with the US, and that now we are on the brink of going the way of almost all other presidential systems. That's to say, it might not be too long until we, too, devolve into a dictatorship.

Comments?

His theory that two-party politics leads to dictatorship seems flawed as the United States has gone through many two-party conflicts without losing its integrity - including a Civil War.

 

[Heyo]

His theory that two-party politics leads to dictatorship seems flawed as the United States has gone through many two-party conflicts without losing its integrity - including a Civil War.

That happens to hypothesis. You find an exception. Then you have two options: discard the hypothesis as falsified or investigate what makes the exception special and reformulate the hypothesis.

E.g.
Hypothesis: water boils at 100° C.
Exception found: it doesn't at high altitude.
New hypothesis: under normal pressure, water boils at 100° C.

The question now is: what makes the US special?

 

[Ponder This]

That happens to hypothesis. You find an exception. Then you have two options: discard the hypothesis as falsified or investigate what makes the exception special and reformulate the hypothesis.

E.g.
Hypothesis: water boils at 100° C.
Exception found: it doesn't at high altitude.
New hypothesis: under normal pressure, water boils at 100° C.

The question now is: what makes the US special?

You mean the US was special... repeatedly. If it's special many times, then it indicates it probably wasn't just being lucky, as was suggested. Seeing as the US has been mostly two-party through history, there must be another factor.

Maybe a closer look at failed presidencies is warranted. Blaming a two-party system seems woefully insufficient. It seems clear that simply having two-parties will never be enough by itself to cause the US to become a dictatorship

 

[Heyo]

You mean the US was special... repeatedly. If it's special many times, then it indicates it probably wasn't just being lucky, as was suggested. Seeing as the US has been mostly two-party through history, there must be another factor.

Maybe a closer look at failed presidencies is warranted. Blaming a two-party system seems woefully insufficient. It seems clear that simply having two-parties will never be enough by itself to cause the US to become a dictatorship

Good thinking. There are two possible solutions: either the US has something the failed two-party systems didn't have or the US doesn't have something the other systems did have. (Which doesn't have to be the same thing for all.)
Or there is no pattern at all.