The Intrinsic Danger of Presidential Systems of Government

[joe1776]

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....

Sunstone, I've recently authored two threads on this topic in the North American Politics forum.

My theory is that the concept of leadership is flawed whether the title is President, Prime Minister or CEO. The individuals who are highly ambitious for power were corrupted at conception by an arrogant need to prove themselves superior to others. They are very likely to abuse power whether they become hall monitors, police officers, CEOs or heads of state.

Moreover, democracy is basically flawed because the quality of decision-making depends on a process in which decision-makers offer:

1. maximum inherited intelligence
2. maximum specialized training and experience
3. maximum efficiency of the process
4. minimum bias relevant to the issue

Selecting decision-makers by democratic elections achieves none of those four standards. I think leaderless, online expert panels, which grade well in serving all four needs, are in our future.

I've linked my two threads if you're interested.

Thank You, Donald

The Future of International Expert Advisory Panels

 

[Heyo]

This whole notion of presidential systems being inherently authoritarian is just more of the same hole shooting that the haters of freedom typically resort to. It's a total falsity... A flat out lie.

You're fighting a straw man here. Nobody said that presidential systems are inherently authoritarian - they are more likely to lead to authoritarianism.
The problem lies in a single person having too much power. A parliamentary system usually has more checks and balances, preventing a single person from accumulating power. And if that system also allows for diversity in parties, it becomes even more democratic.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are you talking about the media entertainment industry, such as CNN?

Yes, I mean CNN is a part of the Constitutional setup that fractures and decentralizes power. CNN who made sure their wouldn't be 100% cooperative military leaders, who made sure a letter about intern resistance would be released, and CNN who ensured Trump couldn't demand loyalty to himself.

It's true that freedom isn't free, and it's a constant battle to maintain it. it might be true that we have lost some battles by those who idolize everything European, if what you say is true.

Oh, yes, those freedom degrading and super European anti-slander laws, that oppressice laws that prohibit misleading advertisements, those crippling and Euro-centrict laws that prevent things said that could cause people to get hurt. Oh, what will we ever do under the tyranny of not being able to shout fire in a crowded theater?

 

[Samael_Khan]

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?

As we have learnt from history, hierarchy breeds tyranny. We should get rid of the hierarchical structure. Decisions should be made by the masses. The masses shouldn't vote people into power so that those elect can make decisions for them.

But, to get this right, the majority must be educated, and those in power haven't empowered the majority through education because then they would lose their power.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Shadow it's against the law to say certain words in many parliamentary systems even if they aren't flat out death threats... That's not freedom. It's authoritarian.

...That's why I said the whole notion of presidential systems being Authoritarian is a falsity. it's a flat out lie -- it's totally the opposite.

The irony of freedom is that certain freedoms have to be restricted because they if let run amuck they will result in freedom being taken away from others.

Take dog whistling for instance. They will not lead to oppression immediately. But it does allow a group of unsavoury individuals who wish to oppress others to grow in secret to the masses and then they might possibly strike before it is too late. That is what happened in South Africa leading up to Apartheid.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Have you considered that it might not be the system but the people, through their own nature, who have trended toward dictatorship? There are other examples of people and cultures who reject mainline Western qualities (freedom and equality), such as Afghanistan.

Also note the difference between western European, so called "socialist" countries and Venezuelan style socialism.

What do you mean by "Western" qualities? The "west" was pro slavery and pro segregation within the last century. Slavery contributed to the capitalist state and can be argued to still contribute to that through wage slavery. It was the rise of socialism that actually caused the West to evolve for the better in many cases through protests and strikes (among more harsher methods), as the core of socialism is freedom and equality. When a state starts to oppress its people it is no longer a socialist state, as it no longer serves the people.

With regard to socialist countries, they were in the transition stage of becoming a socialist country. In this stage the state has to make the transformation to a socialist society by giving the country to the people. What happened in places like Russia and China is that they failed to make the transition, and thus just replaced the privatisation of companies with the state ownership permanently, making those countries state Capitalists.

 

[Secret Chief]

i've also thought for a while now that multi-party, coalition-forming systems might be a better way to go.

Too right. The UK is also stuck in a not-fit-for-purpose system: "First Past the Post." Unfortunately this has suited the two main parties so they have never pushed for it to be changed (neither promoted it - Labour "no position", Tory "no" - during the referendum which was forced upon them by a third party). I look on countries with PR with envy. NZ ia a perfect example. It was previously FPTP but ditched it in 1993 for a proportional system.

 

[Twilight Hue]

They're just messing with us right now. That's why I want Americans to come together and try to ignore the divide and conquer tactics of the rulers that shouldn't be. They want to destroy your faith in the system. So even though I know it's all rigged ... I want Americans to keep faith in the system such as it is. It's illusion but it's all you got.

USA was set up as the buggyman since 9-11 to the world so it could be disintegrated ... Yay! All Americans cheer as the country breaks down and they squabble over trinkets and petty minded nonsense. My point is that people should keep on believing in the USA and keep loving their country because it's kind of the only boat you're stuck in. And if you put holes in your own boat you're going down with it.

Its not the presidential system thats the culprit.

It is special interest and lobbying such as that from from high ticket unions that pretty much leaves us with low quality leaders beholden to the whims of their benefactors.

We don't have a venue for smart and intelligent leaders that have the capability to run a country properly anymore.

 

[Koldo]

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?

Honestly...
I would be scared of a parliamentary system being implemented in my country, Brazil.
The reason for this is thus: Voters barely know who they are voting for. It is already hard enough to truly know the candidates' actual platform in a presidential election.

By the way, we simply don't have just two strong parties in Brazil. No idea why this has happened in USA.

 

[Heyo]

Its not the presidential system thats the culprit.

It is special interest and lobbying such as that from from high ticket unions that pretty much leaves us with low quality leaders beholden to the whims of their benefactors.

We don't have a venue for smart and intelligent leaders that have the capability to run a country properly anymore.

Lobbying is a pet peeve of the progressive left. A litmus test for Justice Democrats is that they don't take money from big corporate donors or super PACs. And they try to get an amendment through that bans money from politics. Home - Wolf-PAC

 

[Brickjectivity]

yeah. i've always thought the checks and balances were key. But the last 4 years have shown that they're not quite as balanced as they ought to be.

i've also thought for a while now that multi-party, coalition-forming systems might be a better way to go.

Congress isn't going to vote for that or any other means of self reform. At this point everything is up to the states. You have to get the states to call for a convention, and that is itself a risky prospect if they ever do call one.

 

[bobhikes]

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.


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?

I don't see it as a weakness of the system but a weakness of people. All governmental system's collapse usually coinciding with social change. What's happening in the US currently is that the European Christian system the bound all people together has been collapsing over the last decades in the US. Currently the majority is switching this has brought out the survival instinct in the the falling majority. Typically like with slavery this could have lead to a civil war and if Hilary was elected I believe it actually would of. I think that by electing Trump and not getting the dictatorship that he and his party tried to achieve the US can now slowly change and build another 100 or more years before it happens again. It will keep happening and the US government may actually fall but its not the system it is just how people are.

 

[joe1776]

As we have learnt from history, hierarchy breeds tyranny...

I think you are mistaken. The hierarchical structure allows the power to implement the decisions made at the top. That power is amoral. It can be used in a worthy cause or an unworthy cause.

 

[Cooky]

You're fighting a straw man here. Nobody said that presidential systems are inherently authoritarian - they are more likely to lead to authoritarianism.
The problem lies in a single person having too much power. A parliamentary system usually has more checks and balances, preventing a single person from accumulating power. And if that system also allows for diversity in parties, it becomes even more democratic.

How do you know for sure it's straw man? in the OP, we see that the average allowable time is 20 years before dictatorship sets in.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I think you are mistaken. The hierarchical structure allows the power to implement the decisions made at the top. That power is amoral. It can be used in a worthy cause or an unworthy cause.

I agree that in and of itself it is amoral, just like a gun is amoral. I say that hierarchical structures breed tyranny because of those who are prone to wield the tool. If there was only benevolent people who were placed in charge of the structure then the hierarchical structure who work perfectly. So you would be right in your last sentence. The problem is that unless we have a way of weeding out those who would wield it for an unworthy cause, it breeds tyranny. And when that happens, the structure really becomes oppressive.

 

[Cooky]

Yes, I mean CNN is a part of the Constitutional setup that fractures and decentralizes power. CNN who made sure their wouldn't be 100% cooperative military leaders, who made sure a letter about intern resistance would be released, and CNN who ensured Trump couldn't demand loyalty to himself.

I'm sorry for being a rotten mind reader. I'll never take a guess at anything again, I promise. From now on I'll ask questions only, and never guess.

(I still have no ******* idea what you're talking about)

 

[joe1776]

I agree that in and of itself it is amoral, just like a gun is amoral. I say that hierarchical structures breed tyranny because of those who are prone to wield the tool. If there was only benevolent people who were placed in charge of the structure then the hierarchical structure who work perfectly. So you would be right in your last sentence. The problem is that unless we have a way of weeding out those who would wield it for an unworthy cause, it breeds tyranny. And when that happens, the structure really becomes oppressive.

OK, we agree now. In Post 21, I argue that the concept of leadership, having one individual with lots of power, is part of the problem.

 

[Samael_Khan]

OK, we agree now. In Post 21, I argue that the concept of leadership, having one individual with lots of power, is part of the problem.

Definitely. I even go so far as to say that we shouldn't elect people to make decisions for us. Rather the population as a whole should make the decisions and the government carries those decisions out. Also, governments must be transparent to prevent corruption.

 

[Heyo]

How do you know for sure it's straw man? in the OP, we see that the average allowable time is 20 years before dictatorship sets in.

The author's thesis was that presidential systems are intrinsically unstable forms of government which tend to rapidly devolve into tyrannies.

This whole notion of presidential systems being inherently authoritarian is just more of the same hole shooting that the haters of freedom typically resort to. It's a total falsity... A flat out lie.

Do you see the difference?

 

[Cooky]

Do you see the difference?

Not much difference, no. they seem close, though not exactly the same. if I could have remembered the exact language used, I would have used that, but I did my best to replicate the notion being described.