Presidential Systems, Democracy, and Nation-Building

Introduction: The Case for Presidential Democracy

Although it is not perfect, the presidential system of government — as typified by the United States — is the best system of government ever conceived. By creating a system in which the public can remove administrations without changing the legal basis for government, democracy aims at reducing political uncertainty and instability, and assuring citizens that however much they may disagree with present policies, they will be given a regular chance to change those who are in power or change policies with which they disagree. This is preferable to a system where political change takes place through violence.

Democracies are also more peaceful. Democratic nations do not aggressively attack their neighbors; they seek to resolve differences peacefully. Market forces become the overriding concern in a democratic state. As Immanuel Kant, the original proponent of the democratic peace, contended: in democracies, those who pay for wars — that is, the public — make the decisions, so they are understandably cautious.

Structure and Characteristics of Presidential Government

A presidential system, or congressional system, is a system of government of a republic in which the executive branch is elected separately from the legislative. The defining characteristic of presidential government is how the executive is elected, but in nearly all presidential systems the president is both head of state and head of government and holds a fixed term of office. Elections are held at scheduled times and cannot be triggered by a vote of confidence or other parliamentary procedures. The executive branch is unipersonal: members of the cabinet serve at the pleasure of the president and must carry out the president's policies. As one commentator notes, "the government which is elected by democratic procedures becomes the absolutely legitimate government. If legitimacy is strong, then it becomes culturally taboo to overthrow it. It even becomes taboo not to see it as 'our government.' Because U.S. citizens think this way, the United States is politically stable."

There are also a few countries — the Czech Republic and South Africa being examples — that have powerful presidents who are elected by the legislature. These presidents are chosen in the same way as a prime minister, yet serve as both heads of state and heads of government. These executives are titled "president," yet are constitutionally identical to prime ministers. Some political scientists consider the conflation of head-of-state and head-of-government duties to be a problem of presidentialism, because criticism of the president as head of state becomes criticism of the state itself.

Advantages of the Presidential System

A president, by virtue of a fixed term, may provide more stability than a prime minister who can be dismissed at any time. Stability was a virtue prized highly by the framers of the Constitution, as we see in the writings of James Madison in the Federalist Papers: "Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice."

A prime minister is usually chosen by a few individuals within the legislature, while a president is usually chosen by the people. According to supporters of the presidential system, a popularly elected leadership is inherently more democratic than a leadership chosen by a legislative body, even if that legislative body was itself elected. In some parliamentary systems, however — such as Israel's — the party leader is chosen by the party's rank-and-file membership through primaries.

It is also claimed that the direct mandate of a president makes him or her more accountable. The reasoning is that a prime minister is "shielded" from public opinion by the apparatus of state, being several steps removed from the electorate. Despite the existence of the no-confidence vote, in practice it is extremely difficult to stop a prime minister or cabinet that has made its decision. To vote down the cabinet's legislation is to bring down a government and trigger new elections — a step few are willing to take. Hence, a no-confidence vote in some parliamentary countries, such as Britain, occurs only a few times in a century.

The fact that a presidential system separates the executive from the legislature is sometimes held up as an advantage, in that each branch may scrutinize the actions of the other. In a parliamentary system, the executive is drawn from the legislature, making criticism of one by the other considerably less likely. According to supporters of the presidential system, the absence of checks and balances means that misconduct by a prime minister may never be discovered. As one analysis notes, "Presidents and legislatures are directly elected and have their own fixed mandates. This mutual independence creates the possibility of a political impasse between the chief executive and the legislative body for which there is no constitutionally available impasse-breaking device."

Some supporters of presidential systems claim that such systems can respond more rapidly to emerging situations than parliamentary ones. A prime minister, when taking action, needs to retain the support of the legislature, but a president is often less constrained, even when checks on executive power exist. A presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. Critics argue that this separation of powers creates undesirable gridlock and reduces accountability by allowing the president and the legislature to shift blame to each other. It is also claimed that the difficulty in removing an unsuitable president before his or her term has expired represents a significant problem.

Other supporters of presidential systems argue in the opposite direction, however, saying that presidential systems can slow decision-making to beneficial ends. Divided government — where the presidency and the legislature are controlled by different parties — is said to restrain the excesses of both parties and guarantee bipartisan input into legislation.

Many people consider presidential systems to be superior in surviving emergencies. Under enormous stress, supporters argue, a country may be better off led by a president with a fixed term than by rotating premierships. The fixed term may also allow an unpopular president to maintain a policy that many people oppose, but which turns out to be the correct course for the country.

The fact that elections are fixed in a presidential system is likewise often held as a valuable check on the powers of the executive. While parliamentary systems often allow the prime minister to call elections whenever he sees fit, or to orchestrate a vote of no confidence to trigger one when he cannot get a legislative item passed, the presidential model is said to discourage this sort of opportunism and instead force the executive to operate within the confines of a term he or she cannot alter to suit personal needs.

Conclusion: Prerequisites for Lasting Democracy

Although nation builders have casually assumed that democracy can be established anywhere, some scholars have gone to the opposite extreme. For them, democracy is a delicate flower that requires a host of social and institutional prerequisites. Over the years, they have compiled a long list of requirements. One scholar suggests that democracy requires a populace endowed with nine psychological traits, among which are tolerance, realism, flexibility, and objectivity, and further that the country must have economic well-being, economic equality, and an educated citizenry.

Another political scientist names seven conditions necessary for democracy, including "a strong concern for the mass of people [and] high social mobility." Two other scholars claim that democracy rests on seven basic beliefs, including "respect for individual personality," "belief in rationality," and "equality of opportunity."

The bare minimum needed for even an imperfect democracy to exist is a restraint in the use of violence in domestic political affairs. In a functioning democracy, we tend to take this condition for granted — we assume that opposition leaders do not routinely take up arms to shoot their way into power, and that presidents do not routinely jail and murder their critics. In many foreign countries, however, this assumption about peaceful political participation is not satisfied. Many people are disposed to resort to violence in political disputes, willing to kill and to risk being killed, to counter a perceived wrong or to implement what they believe to be right — or simply to seize power. "A state of affairs in which people's rights are systematically violated can hardly be described as a 'good' state of affairs, and the nastiness of these affairs may not be adequately reflected by the utility loss generated by these violations."

To say that a high-violence society cannot support democracy does not mean that democracy requires perfect domestic peace. It can survive violence if that violence is independent of the political elite. There is an enormous difference — which observers usually ignore — between an assassination carried out by a lone killer and one planned by political leaders and condoned by a large segment of the public. The former has no more political significance than a fatal automobile accident. What ultimately sustains a democratic system is not the absence of conflict, but a shared commitment among political actors to resolve that conflict through legitimate, peaceful means.