Presidential government

Features of Presidential Government.Presidential government differs from cabinet or parliamentary systems. In this system, the executive, which includes the head of state and their ministers, operates independently from the legislature.The executive’s tenure and political policies are not subject to legislative control or responsibility.

In such a system, the chief of state is not merely the titular executive; he is the real executive who actively exercises the powers granted by the constitution and laws. The President typically acts through ministers or “secretaries,” as they are called in the United States, but these officials do not hold responsibility to the legislature for his actions. Legally, people consider their actions as his own. The President chooses them, usually from his party, and does not select them from the legislature. In fact, they may belong to a political party that lacks a majority in either legislative chamber.

Indeed, they cannot be members of Congress in the United States. The legislative mandate and ministerial office are constitutionally incompatible functions. Unlike parliamentary systems, U.S. cabinet members do not directly introduce legislation in Congress. They may support legislative measures through sympathetic lawmakers but cannot propose laws directly. Although U.S. cabinet members theoretically have the right to address Congress, they rarely exercise this right. Unlike parliamentary ministers, they are accountable only to the president. The president appoints and can dismiss them at will, without congressional approval. Their role is purely executive, serving the president rather than the legislature.

He and the ministers are generally accountable to the legislature, or one chamber of it, for specific grave crimes and can face impeachment and removal from office. However, they are not responsible to the legislature for their political policies or actions. Votes of censure, condemnation, or want of confidence by the legislature have therefore no legal effect and they never think of resigning in consequence of such votes or of the refusal of the legislature to enact the measures or vote the appropriations which they advocate.

The ministers are, as stated above, politically responsible only to the chief executive who appoints them, and he (in case he is popularly elected) is responsible only to the electorate.

Since, under the presidential system, the chief executive and his cabinet may, and in the United States not infrequently do, belong to a political party which is in the minority in one or both chambers of the legislature, their responsibility to the legislature under such circumstances would manifestly lead to the breakdown of the presidential system.

The Presidential System in the United States

Presidential System in the United States: A Leading Example

The United States serves as the most prominent example of the presidential system, both at the national level and within individual states. This system has influenced many Latin American nations, which have followed the North American model. In a modified form, the presidential system existed in the former German Empire (1871–1919), where the Emperor appointed ministers who were not selected from parliament. Neither the Emperor nor his ministers were accountable to parliament for political acts, with ministers serving entirely at the Emperor’s discretion.

The Role of the U.S. President: Fixed Term and Defined Powers

In the U.S., the president’s term is set at four years, as specified by the Constitution. Elected by the people, the president’s powers are also defined by the Constitution, ensuring independence from Congress in terms of election, authority, and term length. The president can recommend laws for Congress to consider and suggest budget appropriations. While the president has the power to veto bills, neither the president nor cabinet members can introduce legislation or advocate for bills directly in Congress. Moreover, the president does not have the power to dissolve Congress or call for new elections.

Presidential Cabinet: Complete Freedom in Selection

The U.S. president enjoys complete autonomy in selecting cabinet members, without being required to appoint individuals who have the confidence of the majority party in Congress. Unlike parliamentary systems where a chief minister selects cabinet members, the U.S. president chooses all cabinet members directly. These members are subordinates, not colleagues, and their relationship with the president differs significantly from that of a prime minister with associates in parliamentary systems like the U.K.

Accountability of U.S. Cabinet: Solely to the President

In the U.S. system, cabinet members are accountable only to the president for their political actions, not to Congress. The president has the authority to dismiss cabinet members for any reason, or no reason at all, reinforcing the president’s control over the executive branch. This system renders the executive branch largely independent of Congressional oversight, highlighting the constitutional autocracy of the U.S. presidency in many respects

The Presidential System in Latin America

Presidential Systems in Latin America: Following the U.S. Model

In most Latin American countries, the presidential system has been adopted, following the structure of the United States. These systems, however, vary in their application, particularly in how the president and ministers interact with the legislature.

Argentina’s Presidential System and Ministerial Accountability

Although the constitution proclaims ministerial responsibility, it remains unclear whether ministers are accountable to the president or Congress. However, Congress often questions ministers, as seen in the January 29, 1894, session, where members argued that Congress had the right to require ministers to explain their policies.

Despite occasional presidential and cabinet resignations due to disagreements with the chamber of deputies, the general practice upholds the executive’s independence from parliamentary majorities, similar to the U.S. system.

Brazil’s Presidential System: Clearer Distinctions of Responsibility

Brazil’s constitution of July 24, 1891, provides a more detailed and definitive framework for the relationship between the president, ministers, and Congress. It explicitly prohibits ministers from appearing in either legislative chamber. Ministers can communicate with Congress only in writing or through committee conferences.The ministers are not accountable to Congress or the courts for their advice to the president unless they commit legally defined crimes.

Brazil’s constitution sets the president’s term at four years and specifies that removal from office can only occur through impeachment. Unlike in the U.S., the president’s actions must be countersigned by ministers. However, this does not indicate political responsibility to Congress, as the ministers are solely accountable to the president.

The Swiss System

Switzerland’s Unique System of Government: A Hybrid Model

Switzerland’s system of government stands apart from both the presidential and cabinet types, combining elements from each while introducing distinct features. The Swiss government is led by an Executive Council, composed of seven members elected by the legislature for the same term length as the legislature itself.These members often come from within the legislature.

Similarities to the Cabinet System

Switzerland’s Executive Council resembles the cabinet system in several ways. The council functions as a legislative committee, with each member heading an administrative department. Although members of the council may participate in both chambers of the legislature, they cannot vote. They can make motions, express their views, and answer questions about their official actions and policies.In practice, the council is subject to the control of the legislature, especially the lower chamber, and generally adheres to its demands.

Like a cabinet in parliamentary systems, the council drafts and prepares key legislative measures, including the national budget, and plays a leading role in guiding legislative actions. In this capacity, the Swiss Executive Council functions similarly to the British cabinet, acting as a leader and advisor in the legislative process.

Key Differences from Parliamentary Systems

Despite these similarities, Switzerland’s Executive Council differs significantly from cabinets in parliamentary systems.

Unlike traditional cabinets, the council does not always represent the majority political party or coalition in the legislature. This creates a more politically diverse body, with members free from any specific political agenda during their election.

Additionally, legislators do not follow interpellations aimed at council members with votes of confidence or censure. Therefore, council members do not need to resign if they lose legislative support. Most importantly, the Swiss Executive Council does not hold responsibility to the legislature like cabinets do in parliamentary systems.

Members are not required to resign if legislators reject their policies. They also lack the power to dissolve the legislature or its chambers. Consequently, they cannot appeal to the electorate to challenge legislative decisions.

 The Soviet System of  Russia

The Russian Socialist Soviet Republic: A Unique Government Structure

The Russian Socialist Soviet Republic represents a unique and recently established form of government. It stands out for its distinctive system of representation and its relationship between executive and legislative powers. Unlike traditional democracies, this system is based on vocational rather than geographical representation. This feature positions it as sui generis in the world of governance.

Legislative Power: All-Russian Congress and Central Executive Committee

The All-Russian Congress consists of representatives from various soviets. It holds the supreme legislative and constituent powers of the Russian Socialist Soviet Republic. When the congress is not in session, it delegates its functions to a central executive committee. This committee has over 300 members selected by the congress. Due to the congress’s large size, the central committee effectively wields legislative power year-round. This power remains intact even when the congress is in session. Essentially, the central executive committee functions as a subordinate parliament. It operates under the supervision and control of the All-Russian Congress.

Executive Power: Council of People’s Commissars

The executive authority of the Russian system lies with the Council of People’s Commissars. Each member leads an administrative department or commissariat. The central executive committee selects the commissars, who collectively take responsibility for their actions and policies before the committee. This council operates similarly to a cabinet in parliamentary systems. However, the overall structure of governance diverges significantly from both cabinet and presidential systems.

A Hybrid System: More Parliamentary than Presidential

Though the Russian Socialist Soviet Republic exhibits characteristics of both parliamentary and cabinet systems, it remains distinct from either. One key feature of the Russian model is the absence of the principle of separation of powers, making it fundamentally different from democratic structures in other countries. The system prioritizes vocational representation over democratic, geographical representation, marking its departure from conventional governance models.