With over 60 nations having a presidential executive it is one of the most prevalent systems of government in the world, with this, the question arises why nations choose this type of executive. This essay will address this question, by looking at the advantages and disadvantages of a presidential executive in regard to democratic stability and state capacity, furthermore, it will dissect the disadvantages in order to identify ways in which they can be mitigated. State capacity and state stability are two of the defining characteristics of any political system. State capacity being described as “the ability of a government to administer its territory effectively” by Skocpol and democratic stability as the longevity of a government, with Mainwaring describing a stable democracy as a democratic regime that has existed uninterrupted for at least 25 years. In order to fully gain insight into the political process, I will use case studies of two presidential systems. Firstly, the United States of America, which is often seen as the cradle of presidential democracy and secondly Peru, a nation which adopted a presidential system more recently and can be described as a new democracy
Democratic stability is one the most desirable virtues for a democratic regime in a nation state to achieve, as such it is important to understand whether or not a presidential executive achieves this virtue. The major argument used by proponents of presidential systems is that is able to achieve a democratic stability that is unrivalled by a parliamentary system – this is due to the fixed term limits that presidential systems mostly abide by. An ideal example of this is the United States, which since its first presidential election in 1778 has not held an early election due to the United States constitution not having any provisions for such a process to occur . This leads to a situation, in which US presidents rarely leave office early, unless they resign, die or are impeached. With impeached however, being a very complicated and arduous process, not a single president has ever been removed from office via impeachment . With these preconditions, the United States has a high level of democratic stability – which is one of its best assets and advantages.
On the other hand, however, this high level of democratic stability can lead to an erosion of democracy. This erosion of democracy is caused due to the often-immense power that is wielded by a president, who can then move the country into the direction of a dictatorship. This process, particularly common in nations which are undergoing decolonization, has occurred often. Linz conducted research into this phenomenon and concluded that presidential system is not suited to new democracies due to the tendency of strongman politics which cause the country to slip back into political instability and dictatorship. Linz describes in his 1994 book as “The feeling of having independent power, a mandate from the people …… is likely to give the president a sense of power and mission that might be out of proportion to the limited plurality that elected him ”. This direct mandate from the people also lets the President claim they are more legitimate than the legislature, such behaviour can lead to delegitimization of democratic institutions and impede democratic consolidation within new democracies. Examples of this can be seen on the South American continent, in particular Peru under Alberto Fujimori , who’s politics turned into an autocratic democracy as described by Philip Mauceri. Fujimori was able to implement his autocratic policies with his approval rating never dropping below 50% , this was because he was able to mould the presidency into an all-encompassing office and at points dissolving the parliament and constitution – only to introduce his own version of both one year later. This illustrates the greatest weakness of a presidential executive with regard to democratic stability, namely the move from a democracy to an autocracy – which in a presidential system is far easier than in a parliamentary due to the president’s power and position in the political system.
State capacity described earlier as the ability of a government to effectively administer its territory , is a vital ability for a government to be able to govern with legitimacy. If a nation is unable to adequately administer its territory, it will end up being continually occupied with achieving this goal and leaving other issue by the wayside. Ukraine depicts this situation, in which most of the governments focus is on regaining control of the its eastern oblasts that have broken away and the Crimean Peninsula which was annexed by Russia in 2014 . This is where presidential executives highlight their advantages in regard to decision making, as presidents usually have power to make immediate decisions to combat threats to the nation without having to consult the legislature as is mostly the case with parliamentary systems. Using the United States as our major case study, this decision making which enhance the state capacity of the United States is that of executive orders . With these the US president is able to make immediate decision pertaining to nearly any issue that they are confronted with, thus giving them the ability to act quickly and not having to consult any other parties which often causes delay.
“Needless conflict between the executive and the legislature” , is a major disadvantage of a presidential executive and is one that has a direct effect upon the state capacity of a nation state. To be able to dissect this disadvantage, it is important to use the case study of the United States. Within the United States, this conflict is perfectly described illustrated by the Obama administration who was in constant conflict with the Republican controlled House of Representatives, which brought the US Government into shutdown in 2013 over the funding of the Affordable Healthcare Act , in this shutdown the US Government had to furlough over 800,000 government employees, with a further 1.3 million had to attend work without knowing dates of their payment. When presented with such conditions it can be argued that the United States government was not able to effectively administer its territory. Furthermore, it hampers bipartisanship an fosters polarization within societies which hamper the ability of governments to effectively govern.
The presidential executive is not set in stone, as such we are able to present methods and adjustments to the current structure. “Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. ” This statement made by Winston Churchill in 1947 in a speech in the British House of Commons, demonstrates the importance of remembering that democracy is not perfect and that disadvantages can only be mitigated not irradiated. The disadvantages mentioned in the former paragraphs are the erosion of democracy in new democracies due high level of democratic stability of the presidential executive. Such erosion can be combatted and mitigated by having strong checks and balances, such as in the United States. With such checks and balances in place, the president is unable to rogue as not only the legislature would impede him but also the independent judiciary. This curtailing of executive power can be seen in action on multiple occasions with the current US administration of Donald Trump. It must be considered that with such strong checks in balances, the potential of conflict between the different levels of government will increase. But such a potential for gridlock must be accepted in order to ensure that a nation does not fall under autocratic rule. This mitigation, however, increases the disadvantage in regard to state capacity, namely, it adds more potential of gridlock and hinders rapid action. This is however, one of the pitfalls of current democracy, with consultation being key even if it hinders states from acting. If it would be tried to mitigate this aspect, it would have serious consequences
In conclusion, presidential executives represent one of best systems of governance that we know of today, with major advantages over competing systems such as the president being directly elected by the people. But particularly in regard to democratic stability due to fixed terms and the set procedures of succession. Furthermore, presidential executives give governments the ability to act fast and unilaterally without having to conduct as much consultation as would be required in a parliamentary democracy, which strengthens a nations state capacity. These benefits in my opinion, are in certain cases outweighed by the disadvantages presented to both state capacity and democratic stability, the major one being presidential are often highly polarised democracies, due to the winner takes all principle of the presidency. This can lead to split in society as can been seen in the United States after the election of Donald Trump over Hilary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential election. In addition, it is easier for presidential democracies to move towards authoritarianism, particularly for new democracies, than for parliamentary democracies. This is a threat to the democratic stability of a nation, this is not to say that nations with presidential executives will become authoritarian states, but more that it is easier for “strongman” politics to emerge in presidential democracies due to powerful position of the president.