Presidential system

A presidential system, or single executive system, is a form of government in which a head of

government (president) leads an executive branch that is separate from the legislative branch in systems that
use separation of powers. This head of government is in most cases also the head of state.

In presidential countries, the head of government is elected and is not responsible to the legislature, which
cannot (usually) in normal circumstances dismiss it. Such dismissal is possible, however, in uncommon
cases, often through impeachment.

The title "president" has persisted from a time when such a person personally presided over the governing
body, as with the President of the Continental Congress in the early United States, prior to the executive
function being split into a separate branch of government.

A presidential system contrasts with a parliamentary system, where the head of government comes to
power by gaining the confidence of an elected legislature. There are also hybrid systems such as the semi-
presidential system, used in the former Weimar Republic, France, and Poland.

Countries that feature a presidential or semi-presidential system of government are not the exclusive users
of the title of president. Heads of state of parliamentary republics, largely ceremonial in most cases, are
called presidents. Dictators or leaders of one-party states, whether popularly elected or not, are also often
called presidents.

Presidentialism is the dominant form of government in the mainland Americas, with 19 of its 22 sovereign
states being presidential republics, the exceptions being Canada, Belize, and Suriname. It is also prevalent
in Central and southern West Africa and in Central Asia. By contrast, there are very few presidential
republics in Europe, with Belarus and Cyprus being the only examples. Oceania is the only continent that
has no presidential republics.

Contents
Characteristics
Subnational governments of the world
Advantages
Direct elections
Separation of powers
Speed and decisiveness
Stability
Criticism and disadvantages
Tendency towards authoritarianism
Political gridlock
Lack of accountability
Impediments to leadership change
Differences from a parliamentary system
Overlapping elements
States with a presidential system of government
Presidential systems
Presidential systems with a prime minister
Countries with a Supreme Leader
Presidential system in administrative divisions
Former presidential republics
See also
Notes and references
External links

Characteristics
In a full-fledged presidential system, a politician is chosen directly by the public or indirectly by the
winning party to be the head of government. Except for Belarus and Kazakhstan, this head of government
is also the head of state, and is therefore called president. The post of prime minister (also called premier)
may also exist in a presidential system, but unlike in semi-presidential or parliamentary systems, the prime
minister answers to the president and not to the legislature.

The following characteristics apply generally for the numerous presidential governments across the world:

The executive can veto legislative acts and, in turn, a supermajority of lawmakers may
override the veto. The veto is generally derived from the British tradition of royal assent in
which an act of parliament can only be enacted with the assent of the monarch.
The president has a fixed term of office. Elections are held at regular times and cannot be
triggered by a vote of confidence or other parliamentary procedures, although in some
countries there is an exception which provides for the removal of a president who is found to
have broken a law.
The executive branch is unipersonal. Members of the cabinet serve at the pleasure of the
president and must carry out the policies of the executive and legislative branches. Cabinet
ministers or executive departmental chiefs are not members of the legislature. However,
presidential systems often need legislative approval of executive nominations to the cabinet,
judiciary, and various lower governmental posts. A president generally can direct members
of the cabinet, military, or any officer or employee of the executive branch, but cannot direct
or dismiss judges.
The president can often pardon or commute sentences of convicted criminals.

Subnational governments of the world

Subnational governments, usually states, may be structured as presidential systems. All of the state
governments in the United States use the presidential system, even though this is not constitutionally
required. On a local level, many cities use council-manager government, which is equivalent to a
parliamentary system, although the post of a city manager is normally a non-political position. Some
countries without a presidential system at the national level use a form of this system at a subnational or
local level. One example is Japan, where the national government uses the parliamentary system, but the
prefectural and municipal governments have governors and mayors elected independently from local
assemblies and councils.

Advantages
Supporters generally claim four basic advantages for presidential systems:

Direct elections — in a presidential system, the president is often elected directly by the
people. This makes the president's power more legitimate than that of a leader appointed
indirectly. However, this is not a necessary feature of a presidential system. Some
presidential states have an indirectly elected head of state.
Separation of powers — a presidential system establishes the presidency and the
legislature as two parallel structures. This allows each structure to monitor and check the
other, preventing abuses of power.
Speed and decisiveness — A president with strong powers can usually enact changes
quickly. However, the separation of powers can also slow the system down.
Stability — a president, by virtue of a fixed term, may provide more stability than a prime
minister, who can be dismissed at any time.

Direct elections

In most presidential systems, the president is elected by popular vote, although some such as the United
States use an electoral college or some other method.[1] By this method, the president receives a personal
mandate to lead the country, whereas in a parliamentary system a candidate might only receive a personal
mandate to represent a constituency. That means a president can only be elected independently of the
legislative branch.

Separation of powers

A presidential system's separation of 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. A
formal condemnation of the executive by the legislature is often considered a vote of no confidence.
According to supporters of the presidential system, the lack of checks and balances means that misconduct
by a prime minister may never be discovered. Writing about Watergate, Woodrow Wyatt, a former MP in
the UK, said "don't think a Watergate couldn't happen here, you just wouldn't hear about it." (ibid)

Critics respond that if a presidential system's legislature is controlled by the president's party, the same
situation exists. Proponents such as political scientists note that even in such a situation a legislator from the
president's party is in a better position to criticize the president or his policies should he deem it necessary,
since the immediate security of the president's position is less dependent on legislative support. In
parliamentary systems, party discipline is much more strictly enforced. If a parliamentary backbencher
publicly criticizes the executive or its policies to any significant extent then he/she faces a much higher
prospect of losing his/her party's nomination, or even outright expulsion from the party. Even mild criticism
from a backbencher could carry consequences serious enough (in particular, removal from consideration for
a cabinet post) to effectively muzzle a legislator with any serious political ambitions.

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. In a parliamentary system, if important legislation proposed by the
incumbent prime minister and his cabinet is "voted down" by a majority of the members of parliament then
it is considered a vote of no confidence. To emphasize that particular point, a prime minister will often
declare a particular legislative vote to be a matter of confidence at the first sign of reluctance on the part of
legislators from his or her own party. If a government loses a parliamentary vote of confidence, then the
incumbent government must then either resign or call elections to be held, a consequence few backbenchers
are willing to endure. Hence, a no confidence vote in some parliamentary countries, like Britain, only
occurs a few times in a century. In 1931, David Lloyd George told a select committee: "Parliament has
really no control over the executive; it is a pure fiction." (Schlesinger 1982)

By contrast, if a presidential legislative initiative fails to pass a legislature controlled by the president's party
(e.g. the Clinton health care plan of 1993 in the United States), it may damage the president's political
standing and that of his party, but generally has no immediate effect on whether or not the president
completes his term.

Speed and decisiveness

It is believed that presidential 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. In Why England Slept, future U.S. president John F. Kennedy argued that British
prime ministers Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain were constrained by the need to maintain the
confidence of the Commons.

Other supporters of presidential systems sometimes argue in the exact 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 the
coalition and opposition, and guarantee cross-partisan input into legislation. In the United States,
Republican Congressman Bill Frenzel wrote in 1995:

"There are some of us who think gridlock is the best thing since indoor plumbing. Gridlock is
the natural gift the Framers of the Constitution gave us so that the country would not be
subjected to policy swings resulting from the whimsy of the public. And the competition—
whether multi-branch, multi-level, or multi-house—is important to those checks and balances
and to our ongoing kind of centrist government. Thank heaven we do not have a government
that nationalizes one year and privatizes next year, and so on ad infinitum". (Checks and
Balances, 8)

Stability

Although most parliamentary governments go long periods of time without a no confidence vote, Italy,
Israel, and the French Fourth Republic have all experienced difficulties maintaining stability. When
parliamentary systems have multiple parties, and governments are forced to rely on coalitions, as they often
do in nations that use a system of proportional representation, extremist parties can theoretically use the
threat of leaving a coalition to further their agendas.

Many people consider presidential systems more able to survive emergencies. A country under enormous
stress may, supporters argue, be better off being led by a president with a fixed term than rotating
premierships. France during the Algerian controversy switched to a semi-presidential system as did Sri
Lanka during its civil war, while Israel experimented with a directly elected prime minister in 1992. In
France and Sri Lanka, the results are widely considered to have been positive. However, in the case of
Israel, an unprecedented proliferation of smaller parties occurred, leading to the restoration of the previous
system of selecting a prime minister.

The fact that elections are fixed in a presidential system is considered by supporters a welcome "check" on
the powers of the executive, contrasting parliamentary systems, which may allow the prime minister to call
elections whenever they see fit or orchestrate their own vote of no confidence to trigger an election when
they cannot get a legislative item passed. The presidential model is said to discourage this sort of
opportunism, and instead forces the executive to operate within the confines of a term they cannot alter to
suit their own needs.

Proponents of the presidential system also argue that stability extends to the cabinets chosen under the
system, compared to a parliamentary system where cabinets must be drawn from within the legislative
branch. Under the presidential system, cabinet members can be selected from a much larger pool of
potential candidates. This allows presidents the ability to select cabinet members based as much or more on
their ability and competency to lead a particular department as on their loyalty to the president, as opposed
to parliamentary cabinets, which might be filled by legislators chosen for no better reason than their
perceived loyalty to the prime minister. Supporters of the presidential system note that parliamentary
systems are prone to disruptive "cabinet shuffles" where legislators are moved between portfolios, whereas
in presidential system cabinets (such as the United States Cabinet), cabinet shuffles are unusual.

Criticism and disadvantages

Critics generally claim three basic disadvantages for presidential systems:

Tendency towards authoritarianism – presidentialism raises the stakes of elections,

exacerbates their polarization and can lead to authoritarianism (Linz).
Political gridlock – the separation of powers of a presidential system establishes the
presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. Critics argue that this can create an
undesirable and long-term political gridlock whenever the president and the legislative
majority are from different parties, which is common because the electorate usually expects
more rapid results from new policies than are possible (Linz, Mainwaring and Shugart). In
addition, this reduces accountability by allowing the president and the legislature to shift
blame to each other.[2]
Impediments to leadership change – presidential systems often make it difficult to remove
a president from office early, for example after taking actions that become unpopular.

A fourth criticism applies specifically to nations with a proportionally elected legislature and a presidency.
Where the voters are virtually all represented by their votes in the proportional outcome, the presidency is
elected on a winner-take-all basis. Two different electoral systems are therefore in play, potentially leading
to conflicts that are based on the natural differences of the systems.

Tendency towards authoritarianism

Yale political scientist Juan Linz argues that:

The danger that zero-sum presidential elections pose is compounded by the rigidity of the
president's fixed term in office. Winners and losers are sharply defined for the entire period of
the presidential mandate ... losers must wait four or five years without any access to executive
power and patronage. The zero-sum game in presidential regimes raises the stakes of
presidential elections and inevitably exacerbates their attendant tension and polarization.

Some political scientists say that presidential systems are not constitutionally stable and have difficulty
sustaining democratic practices, noting that presidentialism has slipped into authoritarianism in many of the
countries in which it has been implemented. According to political scientist Fred Riggs, presidentialism has
fallen into authoritarianism in nearly every country it has been attempted.[3][4] The list of the world's 22
older democracies includes only two countries (Costa Rica and the United States) with presidential systems.
Dana D. Nelson, in her 2008 book Bad for Democracy,[5] sees the office of the President of the United
States as essentially undemocratic[6] and characterizes presidentialism as worship of the president by
citizens, which she believes undermines civic participation.[6]

Political gridlock

Some political scientists speak of the "failure of presidentialism" because the separation of powers of a
presidential system often creates undesirable long-term political gridlock and instability whenever the
president and the legislative majority are from different parties. This is common because the electorate often
expects more rapid results than are possible from new policies and switches to a different party at the next
election.[2] Critics such as Juan Linz, argue that this inherent political instability can cause democracies to
fail, as seen in such cases as Brazil and Chile.[7]

Lack of accountability

In such cases of gridlock, presidential systems are said by critics[8] not to offer voters the kind of
accountability seen in parliamentary systems. It is easy for either the president or the legislature to escape
blame by shifting it to the other. Describing the United States, former Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon
said "the president blames Congress, the Congress blames the president, and the public remains confused
and disgusted with government in Washington".[9] Years before becoming president, Woodrow Wilson (at
the time, a fierce critic of the U.S. system of government) famously wrote "how is the schoolmaster, the
nation, to know which boy needs the whipping?"[10]

Impediments to leadership change

Another alleged problem of presidentialism is that it is often difficult to remove a president from office
early. Even if a president is "proved to be inefficient, even if he becomes unpopular, even if his policy is
unacceptable to the majority of his countrymen, he and his methods must be endured until the moment
comes for a new election".[11]

Since prime ministers in parliamentary systems must always retain the confidence of the legislature, in cases
where a prime minister suddenly leaves office there is little point in anyone without a reasonable prospect
of gaining that legislative confidence attempting to assume the premiership. This ensures that whenever a
premiership becomes vacant (or is about to become vacant), legislators from the premier's party will always
play a key role in determining the leader's permanent successor. In theory this could be interpreted to
support an argument that a parliamentary party ought to have the power to elect their party leader directly,
and indeed, at least historically, parliamentary system parties' leadership electoral procedures usually called
for the party's legislative caucus to fill a leadership vacancy by electing a new leader directly by and from
amongst themselves, and for the whole succession process to be completed within as short a time frame as
practical. Today, however, such a system is not commonly practiced and most parliamentary system parties'
rules provide for a leadership election in which the general membership of the party is permitted to vote at
some point in the process (either directly for the new leader or for delegates who then elect the new leader
in a convention), though in many cases the party's legislators are allowed to exercise a disproportionate
influence in the final vote.

Walter Bagehot criticized presidentialism because it does not allow a transfer in power in the event of an
emergency.
 Under a cabinet constitution at a sudden emergency the people can choose a ruler for the
occasion. It is quite possible and even likely that he would not be ruler before the occasion.
The great qualities, the imperious will, the rapid energy, the eager nature fit for a great crisis
are not required—are impediments—in common times. A Lord Liverpool is better in everyday
politics than a Chatham—a Louis Philippe far better than a Napoleon. By the structure of the
world we want, at the sudden occurrence of a grave tempest, to change the helmsman—to
replace the pilot of the calm by the pilot of the storm. But under a presidential government you
can do nothing of the kind. The American government calls itself a government of the supreme
people; but at a quick crisis, the time when a sovereign power is most needed, you cannot find
the supreme people. You have got a congress elected for one fixed period, going out perhaps
by fixed installments, which cannot be accelerated or retarded—you have a president chosen
for a fixed period, and immovable during that period: ... there is no elastic element ... you have
bespoken your government in advance, and whether it is what you want or not, by law you
must keep it ...[12]

However, supporters of the presidential system question the validity of the point. They argue that if
presidents were not able to command some considerable level of security in their tenures, their direct
mandates would be worthless. They further counter that republics such as the United States have
successfully endured war and other crises without the need to change heads of state. Supporters argue that
presidents elected in a time of peace and prosperity have proven themselves perfectly capable of responding
effectively to a serious crisis, largely due to their ability to make the necessary appointments to his cabinet
and elsewhere in government or by creating new positions to deal with new challenges. One prominent,
recent example would be the appointment of a Secretary of Homeland Security following the September 11
attacks in the United States.

Some supporters of the presidential system counter that impediments to a leadership change, being that they
are little more than an unavoidable consequence of the direct mandate afforded to a president, are thus a
strength instead of a weakness in times of crisis. In such times, a prime minister might hesitate due to the
need to keep parliament's support, whereas a president can act without fear of removal from office by those
who might disapprove of his actions. Furthermore, even if a prime minister does manage to successfully
resolve a crisis (or multiple crises), that does not guarantee and he or she will possess the political capital
needed to remain in office for a similar, future crisis. Unlike what would be possible in a presidential
system, a perceived crisis in the parliamentary system might give disgruntled backbenchers or rivals an
opportunity to launch a vexing challenge for a prime minister's leadership.

Finally, many political analysts have criticized presidential systems for their alleged slowness to respond to
their citizens' needs. Often, the checks and balances make action difficult. Walter Bagehot said of the
American system, "the executive is crippled by not getting the law it needs, and the legislature is spoiled by
having to act without responsibility: the executive becomes unfit for its name, since it cannot execute what
it decides on; the legislature is demoralized by liberty, by taking decisions of others [and not itself] will
suffer the effects".[12]

Defenders of presidential systems argue that a parliamentary system operating in a jurisdiction with strong
ethnic or sectarian tensions will tend to ignore the interests of minorities or even treat them with contempt –
the first half century of government in Northern Ireland is often cited as an example – whereas presidential
systems ensure that minority wishes and rights cannot be disregarded, thus preventing a "tyranny of the
majority" and vice versa protect the wishes and rights of the majority from abuse by a legislature or an
executive that holds a contrary viewpoint especially when there are frequent, scheduled elections.

British-Irish philosopher and MP Edmund Burke stated that an official should be elected based on "his
unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience", and therefore should reflect on the
arguments for and against certain policies before taking positions and then act out on what an official would
believe is best in the long run for one's constituents and country as a whole even if it means short-term
backlash. Thus defenders of presidential systems hold that sometimes what is wisest may not always be the
most popular decision and vice versa.

Differences from a parliamentary system

A number of key theoretical differences exist between a presidential and a parliamentary system:

In a presidential system, the central principle is that the legislative, executive and judicial
branches of government are separate. This leads to the separate election of president, who
is elected to office for a fixed term, and only removable for gross misdemeanor by
impeachment and dismissal. By contrast, in parliamentarianism, the executive branch is led
by a council of ministers, headed by a Prime Minister, who are directly accountable to the
legislature and often have their background in the legislature, which may be variously called
a "parliament", an "assembly", a "diet", or a "chamber".
As with the president's set term of office, the legislature also exists for a set term of office and
cannot be dissolved ahead of schedule. By contrast, in parliamentary systems, the prime
minister needs to survive a vote of confidence if one is held, otherwise a new election must
be called. The legislature can typically be dissolved at any stage during its life by the head
of state, usually on the advice of either Prime Minister alone, by the Prime Minister and
cabinet, or by the cabinet.
In a presidential system, the president usually has special privileges in the enactment of
legislation, namely the possession of a power of veto over legislation of bills, in some cases
subject to the power of the legislature by weighted majority to override the veto. The
legislature and the president are thus expected to serve as checks and balances on each
other's powers.
Presidential system presidents may also be given a great deal of constitutional authority in
the exercise of the office of Commander in Chief, a constitutional title given to most
presidents. In addition, the presidential power to receive ambassadors as head of state is
usually interpreted as giving the president broad powers to conduct foreign policy. Though
semi-presidential systems may reduce a president's power over day-to-day government
affairs, semi-presidential systems commonly give the president power over foreign policy.
Parliamentary systems provide greater flexibility in the process of transition to any
consolidation of democracy.[13]
Presidential systems also have fewer ideological parties than parliamentary systems.
Sometimes in the United States, the policies preferred by the two parties have been very
similar, and at times quite polarized. In the 1950s, during the leadership of Lyndon B.
Johnson, the Senate Democrats included the right-most members of the chamber—Harry
Byrd and Strom Thurmond, and the left-most members—Paul Douglas and Herbert Lehman.
This pattern did not permanently hold, nor is it a feature of Latin American presidential
democracies.

Overlapping elements

In practice, elements of both systems overlap. Though a president in a presidential system does not have to
choose a government under the legislature, the legislature may have the right to scrutinize his or her
appointments to high governmental office, with the right, on some occasions, to block an appointment. In
the United States, many appointments must be confirmed by the Senate, although once confirmed an
appointee can only be removed against the president's will through impeachment. By contrast, though
answerable to parliament, a parliamentary system's cabinet may be able to make use of the parliamentary
'whip', an obligation on party members in parliament to vote with their party, to control and dominate
parliament, reducing the parliament's ability to control the government.

States with a presidential system of government

Italics indicate states with limited recognition.

Presidential systems
Afghanistan
Angola
Argentina
Benin
Bolivia
World's states coloured by form of government1
Brazil
Full presidential republics2 Semi-presidential
Chad
republics2
Chile
Republics with an Parliamentary republics2
Colombia
executive president elected
Comoros by or nominated by the
Costa Rica legislature that may or may
Cyprus not be subject to
parliamentary confidence.
Dominican Republic
Parliamentary Constitutional monarchies
Ecuador
constitutional monarchies which have a separate head
El Salvador of government but where
Gambia royalty holds significant
Ghana executive and/or legislative
power
Guatemala
Honduras Absolute monarchies One-party states

Indonesia Countries where Countries which do not fit

constitutional provisions for any of the above systems
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan
government have been (e.g. provisional
Kenya suspended (e.g. military governments).
Liberia dictatorships)
Malawi 1 This map was compiled according to the Wikipedia list of
Maldives countries by system of government. See there for sources.
2 Several states constitutionally deemed to be multiparty
Mexico
Nicaragua republics are broadly described by outsiders as
authoritarian states. This map presents only the de jure
Nigeria form of government, and not the de facto degree of
Palau democracy.
Panama
Paraguay
Philippines
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
 Somaliland
South Sudan
Turkey
Turkmenistan
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Presidential systems with a prime minister

The following countries have presidential systems where a post of prime minister (official title may vary)
exists alongside that of the president. Differently, from other systems, however, the president is still both the
head of state and government and the prime minister's roles are mostly to assist the president. Belarus,
Gabon and Kazakhstan, where the prime minister is effectively the head of government and the president
the head of state, are exceptions.

Belarus Kyrgyzstan
Burundi Peru
Cameroon Rwanda
Central African Republic South Korea
Côte d'Ivoire Tajikistan
Djibouti Tanzania
Equatorial Guinea Togo
Gabon Uganda
Guinea United Arab Emirates
Kazakhstan Uzbekistan

Countries with a Supreme Leader

Iran[14]

Presidential system in administrative divisions

Dependencies of United States

American Samoa
Puerto Rico

Special administrative regions of China

Hong Kong[15]
Macau
Former presidential republics
Armenia (1998–2013)[16]
Azerbaijan (1992–2016)[17]
Bangladesh (1975–1991)[18]
Republic of China (Taiwan) (1948–1991) de facto[19]
Cuba (1902–1959)
Estonia (1938–1940)
Georgia (1995–2004)[20]
Germany (1930–1933) de facto[21]
Haiti (1859–1957), (1957–1986)
Katanga (1960–1963)
Northern Cyprus (1975–2015)[22]
Mali (1960–1992)[23]
Mauritania (1960–1978)[24]
Niger (1960–1974, 1989–1993)[25]
Pakistan (1962–1970)
Poland (1935–1939)
South Vietnam (1955–1975)

See also
List of countries by system of government
Parliamentary system
Westminster system
Semi-presidential system
Coalition government

Notes and references

1. The "presidential" model implies that the Chief Executive is elected by all those members of
the electoral body: Buonomo, Giampiero (2003). "Titolo V e "forme di governo": il caso
Abruzzo (dopo la Calabria)" (https://www.questia.com/projects#!/project/89381752).
Diritto&Giustizia Edizione Online.
2. George, Edwards; Warrenberg, Martin (2016). Government in America: People, Politics, and
Policy, AP* Edition – 2016 Presidential Election, 17th Edition. Pearson Higher Education.
p. 16. ISBN 9780134586571.
3. Riggs, Fred W. (1997). "Presidentialism versus Parliamentarism: Implications for
Representativeness and Legitimacy". International Political Science Review. 18 (3): 258.
doi:10.1177/019251297018003003 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F019251297018003003).
JSTOR 1601343 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1601343). S2CID 145450791 (https://api.sema
nticscholar.org/CorpusID:145450791).
4. "Conceptual homogenization of a heterogeneous field: Presidentialism in comparative
perspective". Comparing Nations: Concepts, Strategies, Substance: 72–152. 1994.
 5. Nelson, Dana D. (2008). Bad for Democracy: How the Presidency Undermines the Power of
the People (https://books.google.com/books?id=qgAWphms5oMC&q=Dana+Nelson+vander
bilt%3F+%22bad+for+democracy%22&pg=PA223). Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of
Minnesota Press. p. 248. ISBN 978-0-8166-5677-6.
6. Sirota, David (August 22, 2008). "Why cult of presidency is bad for democracy" (http://www.sf
gate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/21/EDCQ12G3M0.DTL). San Francisco
Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-09-20.
7. Linz, J. (1990). The perils of presidentialism. The journal of democracy, Volume 1(1), pp. 51-
69.
8. Linz, J. (1985). Democracy: Presidential or Parliamentary does it make a difference.
Connecticut: Yale university press
9. Sundquist, James (1992). Constitutional Reform and Effective Government (https://archive.or
g/details/constitutionalre00sund_1). Brookings Institution Press. p. 11 (https://archive.org/det
ails/constitutionalre00sund_1/page/11).
10. Wilson, Congressional Government (1885), pp. 186–187.
11. Balfour. "Introduction". The English Constitution.
12. Balfour. "The Cabinet". The English Constitution.
13. Linz, J. (1985) Democracy: Presidential or Parliamentary does it make a difference?
Connecticut: Yale university press.
14. Iran combines the forms of a presidential republic, with a president elected by universal
suffrage, and a totalitarian theocracy, with a Supreme Leader who is ultimately responsible
for state policy, chosen by the elected Assembly of Experts. Candidates for both the
Assembly of Experts and the presidency are vetted by the appointed Guardian Council.
15. Chen, Albert Hung Yee (n.d.). "The Executive Authorities and the Legislature in the Political
Structure of the Hong Kong SAR" (http://www.ipm.edu.mo/cntfiles/upload/docs/research/com
mon/1country_2systems/academic_eng/issue4/09.pdf) (PDF).
16. as the Armenian SSR parliamentary in 1990-1991, Soviet age and after independence, it
was a semi-presidential republic in 1991-1998, a presidential republic in 1998-2013, a semi-
presidential republic in 2013-2018 and a parliamentary republic in 2018.
17. as the Azerbaijan SSR, it was a presidential republic in 1989-1991, a semi-presidential
republic after independence in 1991-1992, a presidential republic in 1992-2016 and a semi-
presidential republic in 2016.
18. Semi-presidential in 1971-1975, presidential in 1975-1991, semi-presidential in 1991-2009
and parliamentary republic since 2009.
19. De facto Presidential system in 1948-1991 under a de jure parliamentary republic and semi-
presidential since 1991.
20. as the Georgian SSR and after independence, parliamentary in 1989-1991, semi-
presidential in 1991-1995, presidential in 1995-2004, semi-presidential in 2004-2005 and
presidential 2005-2011. Semi-presidential in 2011-2019 and parliamentary since 2019.
21. A semi-presidential republic as the Weimar Republic in 1918-1930, a presidential republic
in 1930-1933, a totalitarian dictatorship under a parliamentary system in 1933-1949 as a
Nazi Germany, and a parliamentary republic in 1949.
22. Presidential from 1975 to 2015 and semi-presidential from 2015.
23. A presidential republic (1960-1991), military dictatorship (1968-1991,1991-1992, 2012,
2020-present) single-party state (1960-1968, 1974-1991) semi-presidential republic since
1991.
24. A one-party presidential republic (1960-1978), military dictatorship (1978-1992, 2005-2007,
2008-2009) semi-presidential republic since 1992.
25. A single-party presidential republic (1960-1974, 1989-1993), a military dictatorship (1974-
1989, 1996-1999, 1999, 2010-2011), a semi-presidential republic (1993-1996, 1999-2010,
2011-present)
External links
The Great Debate: Parliament versus Congress (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/e
nglish/issue.asp?param=108&art=573)
Castagnola, Andrea/Pérez-Liñán, Aníbal: Presidential Control of High Courts in Latin
America: A Long-term View (1904-2006) (http://hup.sub.uni-hamburg.de/giga/jpla/article/vie
w/41/41), in: Journal of Politics in Latin America, Hamburg 2009.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidential_system&oldid=1042022162"

This page was last edited on 2 September 2021, at 20:46 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.