Presidential system: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:53, 24 October 2006

Latest revision as of 22:49, 23 August 2025

Line 1:

{{short description|Form of government}}

††‡[[Image:Form of government.png|right|350px|thumb|Republics with presidential systems are shown in '''blue''', '''light green''' and '''yellow'''. Click for a more detailed explanation of colors.]]

{{redirect|Presidential Republic|the period in the history of Chile|Presidential Republic (1925–1973)}}

{{Executive}}

{{Redirect|Congressional system|the 19th century European power arrangements|congress system}}

A '''presidential system''', also called a '''congressional system''', is a [[system of government]] where the [[Executive (government)|executive branch]] exists and ''presides'' (hence the term) separate from the [[legislature|legislative]] and is both unaccountable to, and cannot be dismissed in normal circumstances by, it.<ref>The legislature may retain the right, in extreme cases, to dismiss the executive, often through a process called [[impeachment]], or as happened in [[England]] in 1649, through the abolition of the Crown (see [[Commonwealth of England]]). However such an intervention is seen as so rare (only two United States presidents were impeached &mdash; charged with misconduct &mdash; and neither was convicted, while no impeachment has occurred in what is now the United Kingdom for hundreds of years) as to not to contradict the central tenet of presidentialism, that in ''normal circumstances using normal means'' the legislature cannot dismiss the executive.</ref>

{{Systems of government}}

{{Politics sidebar|Systems}}

A '''presidential''', '''strong-president''', or '''single-executive system''' (sometimes also '''congressional system''')<ref name="e173">{{cite web | title=OCR Document | website=static.pmg.org.za | date=March 12, 2008 | url=https://static.pmg.org.za/docs/080307rhoda.htm | access-date=May 19, 2025}}</ref><ref name="t098">{{cite web | title=Canadian Parliamentary Review | website=Article | date=April 17, 1982 | url=http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp?art=573&param=108 | access-date=May 19, 2025}}</ref> is a [[form of government]] in which a [[head of government]] (usually titled "[[President (government title)|president]]") heads an [[Executive (government)|executive branch]] that derives its authority and legitimacy from a source that is [[separation of powers|separate]] from the [[legislative branch]]. The system was popularized by its inclusion in the [[Constitution of the United States]].<ref>{{Cite book|title=Political Representation|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2010|isbn=978-0521128650|chapter=Varieties of public representation}}</ref>

It owes its origins to the [[Mid [[Monarchy|monarchies]] of [[Ancien Régime in France|France]], [[Kingdom of England|England]] and [[Kingdom of Scotland|Scotland]] in which [[executive authority]] was vested in [[the Crown]], not in meetings of the [[estates of the realm]] (ie. [[parliament]]): the [[Estates-General of France]], the [[Parliament of England]] or the [[Estates of Scotland]]. The concept of separate spheres of influence of the executive and legislature was copied in the [[Constitution of the United States]], with the creation of the office of [[President of the United States]]. While [[England]] and [[Scotland]] (since 1707 as the [[Kingdom of Great Britain]], and since 1801 as the [[United Kingdom]]) have moved to a position where the executive is answerable to parliament, the [[United States]] maintains the concept of separation. This has given rise to criticism of the United States presidency, with accusations that the United States has an "[[Imperial presidency]]". Others dispute the extent to which a real separation exists, referring to the concept of "separate institutions sharing power".

This head of government is often also the [[head of state]]. In a presidential system, the head of government is directly or indirectly [[Election|elected]] by a group of [[Citizenship|citizens]] and is not [[Responsible government|responsible]] to the legislature, and the legislature cannot [[Dissolution of parliament|dismiss]] the president except in extraordinary cases. A presidential system contrasts with a [[parliamentary system]], where the head of government (usually called a prime minister) derives their power from the [[Confidence (politics)|confidence]] of an elected [[legislature]], which can dismiss the prime minister with a simple majority.

Though not exclusive to [[republic]]s, and applied in the case of [[absolute monarchy|absolute monarchies]], the term is often associated with republican systems in [[the Americas]].

Not all presidential systems use the title of ''president''. Likewise, the title is sometimes used by other systems. It originated from a time when such a person personally presided over the governing body, as with the [[President of the Continental Congress]] in the [[History of the United States (1789–1849)|early United States]], before the executive function being split into a separate branch of government. Presidents may also use it in [[semi-presidential system]]s. Heads of state of [[parliamentary republic]]s, largely ceremonial in most cases, are called presidents. [[Dictator]]s or leaders of [[one-party state]]s, whether popularly elected or not, are also often called presidents.

==Republican presidential systems==

The presidential system is the most common form of government in [[Americas|the Americas]] and is also frequently found in [[Sub-Saharan Africa]] (along with semi-presidential hybrid systems). By contrast, there are very few presidential republics in [[Europe]] (with [[Politics of Cyprus|Cyprus]] and [[Politics of Turkey|Turkey]] being the only examples). In [[Asia]], the system is used by [[South Korea]], [[Syria]], the [[Philippines]], and [[Indonesia]].

{{Mergefrom|Presidential government|date=October 2006}}

The defining characteristic of a republican presidential government is how the executive is elected, but nearly all presidential systems share the following features:

== History ==

* The [[president]] is both [[head of state]] and [[head of government]].

=== Development in the Americas ===

* The president has no formal relationship with the legislature. He is not a voting member, nor can he introduce [[bill (proposed law)|bill]]s (with the exception of [[Puerto Rico]], where he can introduce a bill). However, in systems such as that of the United States, the President has the power to [[veto]] acts of the legislature, and in turn a [[supermajority]] of legislators may act to override the veto. This practice is derived from the [[United Kingdom|British]] tradition of [[Royal Assent]], in which an act of Parliament cannot come into effect without the assent of the [[British monarchy|Monarch]].

The presidential system has its roots in the governance of the [[British colonization of the Americas|British colonies]] of the 17th century in what is now the United States. The [[Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony)|Pilgrims]], permitted to govern themselves in [[Plymouth Colony]], established a system that utilized an independent executive branch. Each year, a [[Governor of Plymouth Colony|governor]] was chosen by the [[Plymouth General Court|colonial legislature]], as well as several assistants, analogous to modern-day [[Cabinet (government)|cabinets]]. Additional executive officials such as constables and messengers were then appointed.<ref>{{cite web |last=Fennell |first=Christopher |title=Plymouth Colony Legal Structure |url=http://www.histarch.uiuc.edu/plymouth/ccflaw.html |publisher=Histarch.uiuc.edu}}</ref> At the same time, the [[British Isles]] underwent a brief period of republicanism as [[the Protectorate]], during which the [[Lord Protector]] served as an executive leader similar to a president.<ref>Vile, M. J. (1967). The separation of powers. In: Greene, J. P., & Pole, J. R. (Eds.). (2008). ''A companion to the American Revolution'', Ch. 87. John Wiley & Sons.</ref>

* The president has a fixed term of office. Elections are held at scheduled times, and cannot be triggered by a [[vote of confidence]] or other such parliamentary procedures. However, many presidential systems incorporate provisions for the president's trial and subsequent removal from office by the legislature if he or she is found to have committed a crime.

* 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. However, presidential systems frequently require legislative approval of presidential nominations to the Cabinet as well as various governmental posts such as [[judges]]; while the president generally has the power to issue orders to members of the Cabinet, military, or any officer or employee of the Executive Branch, a president does not generally have the power to dismiss or give orders to judges.

*The president often has the power to [[pardon]] or [[commute]] sentences of convicted criminals, a power which, in systems with separate heads of state and heads of government, is generally given to the head of state.

The first true presidential system was developed during the United States [[Constitutional Convention (United States)|Constitutional Convention]] in 1787.<ref name="Sundquist">{{Cite book |last=Sundquist |first=James L. |title=Designs for Democratic Stability: Studies in Viable Constitutionalism |publisher=[[Routledge]] |year=1997 |isbn=0765600528 |editor-last=Baaklini |editor-first=Abdo I. |pages=53–72 |language=en |chapter=The U.S. Presidential System as a Model for the World |editor-last2=Desfosses |editor-first2=Helen}}</ref> Drawing inspiration from the previous colonial governments, from [[English Common Law]], and from philosophers such as [[John Locke]] and [[Montesquieu]], the [[Founding Fathers of the United States|delegates]] developed what is now known as the presidential system. Most notably, [[James Wilson (Founding Father)|James Wilson]] advocated for a unitary executive figure that would become the role of the president.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=McCarthy |first=Daniel J. |date=1987 |title=James Wilson and the Creation of the Presidency |journal=[[Presidential Studies Quarterly]] |volume=17 |issue=4 |pages=689–696}}</ref> The United States became the first presidential republic when the [[Constitution of the United States]] came into force in 1789, and [[George Washington]] became the first president under a presidential system.

During the 1810s and 1820s, Spanish colonies in the Americas [[Spanish American wars of independence|sought independence]], and several new Spanish-speaking governments emerged in [[Latin America]]. These countries modeled their [[constitution]]s after that of the United States, and the presidential system became the dominant political system in the Americas.<ref name="Sundquist" /> Following several decades of [[Empire of Brazil|monarchy]], Brazil also [[Proclamation of the Republic (Brazil)|adopted]] the presidential system in 1889 with [[Deodoro da Fonseca]] as its first president. Latin American presidential systems have experienced varying levels of stability, with many experiencing periods of dictatorial rule.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sondrol |first=Paul |date=2005 |title=The Presidentialist Tradition in Latin America |journal=International Journal of Public Administration |volume=28 |issue=5 |pages=517–530|doi=10.1081/PAD-200055210 |s2cid=153822718 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mainwaring |first=Scott |date=1990 |title=Presidentialism in Latin America |journal=[[Latin American Research Review]] |volume=25 |pages=157–179|doi=10.1017/S0023879100023256 |s2cid=252947271 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Valenzuela |first=Arturo |date=2004 |title=Latin American Presidencies Interrupted |journal=[[Journal of Democracy]] |volume=15 |issue=4 |pages=5–19|doi=10.1353/jod.2004.0075 |s2cid=51825804 }}</ref>

{{clarify}}

(Note that while many [[dictators]] style themselves "President", this constitutes a [[dictatorship]], not a presidential system, regardless of the title, and the vast majority of this article generally would not apply to such a system; likewise, some, perhaps even most, parliamentary democracies, notably [[Israel]] and [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], have a president with fairly little power, however these governments do not follow the model of the presidential system).

=== As a global system ===

The term ''presidential system'' is often used in contrast to [[cabinet (government)|cabinet government]], which is usually a feature of [[parliamentary system|parliamentarism]]. There also exists a kind of intermediate, the [[semi-presidential system]].

Following the pattern of other Spanish colonies, the Philippines established the first presidential system in Asia in 1898, but it fell under [[Philippine–American War|American control]] due to the [[Spanish–American War]]. The presidential system was restored after the United States granted the Philippines independence in 1946.

The end of [[World War II]] established presidential systems in two countries. After the United States ended the [[Korea under Japanese rule|Japanese occupation of Korea]], it assisted [[South Korea]] in the formation of a presidential government. However, the early years of the South Korean presidency were marked by dictatorial control.<ref>{{cite book|author=Tirman, John|title=The Deaths of Others: The Fate of Civilians in America's Wars|publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2011 |isbn=978-0-19-538121-4 |pages=93–95 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2bC5Bsc1NEQC&pg=PA93}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Buzo, Adrian|title=The making of modern Korea|publisher=Taylor & Francis|year=2007|isbn=978-0-415-41482-1|page=79|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KAbbtKCjHfUC&pg=PA79}}</ref> At the same time, Indonesia declared [[Proclamation of Indonesian Independence|independence]] from the Netherlands in 1945. While it nominally used a presidential system, it was in effect a dictatorship where the president controlled all branches of government. A true presidential system was [[Post-Suharto era in Indonesia|established]] in 1998.<ref>{{Cite book |last= |first= |title=Us indonesia diplomatic and political cooperation handbook. |date=2007 |publisher=International Business Publication USA |isbn=978-1-4330-5330-6 |___location= |oclc=946753807}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Bush |first=Robin |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Ssg0aiSEyy0C&pg=PA111 |title=Nahdlatul Ulama and the Struggle for Power Within Islam and Politics in Indonesia |date=2009 |publisher=Institute of Southeast Asian Studies |isbn=978-981-230-876-4 |language=en}}</ref>

Countries with congressional and presidential systems include the [[United States]], [[Indonesia]], the [[Philippines]], [[Mexico]], [[South Korea]], and most countries in [[South America]], as well as much of [[Africa]] and the [[Central Asian Republics]]. The widespread use of presidentialism in the Americas has caused political scientists to dub the Americas as "the continent of presidentialism."

[[Decolonization]] in the 1950s and 1960s brought with it a significant expansion of the presidential system. During this time, several new presidential republics were formed in Africa.{{citation needed |date=February 2025}} Cyprus,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ker-Lindsay |first=James |date=2006 |title=Presidential Power and Authority in the Republic of Cyprus |journal=[[Mediterranean Politics]] |volume=11 |pages=21–37|doi=10.1080/13629390500490379 |s2cid=145444372 }}</ref> the Maldives,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Heath-Brown |first=Nick |title=The Statesman's Yearbook 2016 |year=2015 |chapter=Maldives}}</ref> and [[South Vietnam]]<ref>{{cite web |title=Ngo Dinh Diem |url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ngo-Dinh-Diem |website=Britannica}}</ref> also adopted the presidential system following decolonization. Pakistan<ref>{{cite book |last1=Cohen |first1=Stephen Philip |title=The Idea of Pakistan |date=2004 |publisher=[[Brookings Institution Press]] |___location=Washington, DC |isbn=978-0-8157-9761-6 |page=65 |edition=1st Pbk. |url=https://archive.org/details/ideaofpakistan00cohe}}</ref> and Bangladesh<ref>{{cite book |last=Rono |first=Haider Akbar Khan |title=Śatābdī pēriẏē |date=2010 |publisher=Taraphadara prakashani |isbn=978-984-779-027-5 |page=335 |language=bn |script-title=bn:শতাব্দী পেরিয়ে}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Ahmed |first=Moudud |author-link=Moudud Ahmed |title=Bangladesh: Era of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman |publisher=Franz Steiner Verlag |year=1984 |isbn=3-515-04266-0 |___location=Wiesbaden |page=245 |orig-year=First published 1983}}</ref> did so as well, but they changed their governmental systems shortly afterwards.

==Types of presidents==

Many countries with a President as head of state do not operate under what is described as a presidential system. Many parliamentary nations, [[Germany]], [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] and [[Italy]], for instance, have an office of president, but these presidents are merely [[figurehead]] heads of state, like [[constitutional monarch]]s, and not active executive heads of government. In a full-fledged presidential system, a president is chosen by the people to be the center of the executive branch.

Several more countries adopted the presidential system in the final decades of the 20th century. A modified version of the presidential system was implemented in [[Iran]] following constitutional reform in 1989, in which the [[Supreme Leader of Iran|Supreme Leader]] serves as the head of state and is the absolute power in this country.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Buchta |first=Wilfried |title=Who Rules Iran? The Structure of Power in the Islamic Republic |publisher=[[The Washington Institute for Near East Policy]] and the [[Konrad Adenauer Stiftung]] |year=2000 |isbn=0944029361 |pages=22}}</ref> In 1981, Palau achieved independence and adopted a presidential system.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Shuster |first=Donald R. |date=1983 |title=Elections in the Republic of Palau |journal=[[Political Science (journal)|Political Science]] |volume=35 |pages=117–132|doi=10.1177/003231878303500108 }}</ref> When the [[Soviet Union]] was [[Dissolution of the Soviet Union|dissolved]] in 1991, the presidential system was adopted by the new states that were created, though most of them adopted other governmental systems over the following decades.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hale |first=Henry E. |date=2012 |title=Two Decades of Post-Soviet Regime Dynamics |journal=[[Demokratizatsiya (journal)|Demokratizatsiya]] |volume=20 |issue=2 |pages=71–77}}</ref>

Presidential governments make no distinction between the positions of [[Head of state]] and [[Head of government]], both of which are held by the president. Most [[parliamentary system|parliamentary governments]] have a symbolic head of state in the form of a president or [[monarch]]. That person is responsible for the formalities of state functions as the figurehead while the [[Constitution|constitutional]] prerogatives of head of government are generally exercised by the Prime Minister. Such figurehead presidents tend to be elected in a much less direct manner than active, presidential system presidents, for example by a vote of the legislature. A few nations, such as [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], do have a popularly elected ceremonial president.

The presidential system continues to be adopted in the 21st century. Following its independence in 2011, [[South Sudan]] adopted a presidential system.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Diehl |first1=Katharina |last2=van der Horst |first2=Judith |date=2013 |title=The New Electoral Law in South Sudan |journal=[[Law and Politics in Africa, Asia and Latin America]] |volume=46 |issue=2 |pages=215–233}}</ref> In 2018, after the [[2017 Turkish constitutional referendum]], Turkey adopted a presidential system.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Kirişci |first1=Kemal |last2=Toygür |first2=Ilke |date=2019 |title=Turkey's new presidential system and a changing west |work=[[Brookings Institution|Brookings]] |url=https://www.brookings.edu/research/turkeys-new-presidential-system-and-a-changing-west/}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Adar |first1=Sinem |last2=Seufert |first2=Günter |date=2021 |title=Turkey's Presidential System after Two and a Half Years |journal=Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=2018-06-25 |title=Turkey elections: How powerful will the next Turkish president be? |language=en-GB |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44574919 |access-date=2022-03-01}}</ref> In 2025, following the adoption of the [[2025 Interim Constitution of Syria|new interim constitution]], Syria established a presidential system.<ref>{{cite web |date=14 March 2025 |title=Syria's new constitution gives sweeping powers, ignores minority rights |url=https://www.rfi.fr/en/middle-east/20250314-syria-s-new-constitution-gives-sweeping-powers-ignores-minority-rights |accessdate=15 March 2025 |publisher=rfi}}</ref>

There are also a few countries - [[South Africa]] being an example - which have powerful presidents who are elected by the legislature. These presidents are chosen in the same way as a prime minister, yet are both heads of state and heads of government. These executives are titled "president," yet are in practice similar to prime ministers. Incidentally, the method of legislative vote for president was a plank in [[James Madison|Madison]]'s [[Virginia Plan]] and was seriously considered by the Framers of the American Constitution.

== Features ==

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 is criticism of the state itself.

Several characteristics are unique to presidential systems or prominent in countries that use presidential systems. The defining aspect of presidential systems is the separation of powers that divides the executive and the legislature. Advocates of presidential systems cite the democratic nature of presidential elections, the advantages of the separation of powers, the efficiency of a unitary executive, and the stability provided by fixed terms. Opponents of presidential systems cite the potential for gridlock, the difficulty of changing leadership, and concerns that a unitary executive can give way to a dictatorship.

=== Separation of powers ===

Presidents in presidential systems are ''always'' active participants in the political process, though the extent of their relative power may be influenced by the political makeup of the legislature and whether their supporters or opponents have the dominant position therein. In some presidential systems such as [[South Korea]] or the [[Republic of China]] (on [[Taiwan]]), there is an office of the [[prime minister]] or [[premier]], but unlike in [[semi-presidential system|semi-presidential]] or parliamentary systems, the premier is responsible to the president rather than to the legislature.

{{Main|Separation of powers}}

The presidential system is defined by the separation of the executive branch from other aspects of government. The [[head of government]] is elected to work alongside, but not as a part of, the legislature.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=von Mettenheim |first=Kurt |title=Presidential Institutions and Democratic Politics |publisher=[[The Johns Hopkins University Press]] |year=1997 |isbn=0801853133 |pages=2–15 |language=en}}</ref> There are several types of powers that are traditionally delegated to the president. Under a presidential system, the president may have the power to challenge legislation through a [[veto]],<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Tsebelis |first=George |date=1995 |title=Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism |journal=[[British Journal of Political Science]] |volume=25 |issue=3 |pages=289–325|doi=10.1017/S0007123400007225 |s2cid=18060081 |url=http://revistas.usal.es/index.php/1130-2887/article/view/alh2016734566 }}</ref> the power to [[pardon]] crimes, authority over foreign policy, authority to command the military as the [[Commander-in-chief]], and authority over advisors and employees of the executive branch.{{Citation needed|date=March 2022}}

==== Checks and balances ====

==Perceived advantages of presidential systems==

Separation of powers is sometimes held up as an advantage, in that each branch may scrutinize the actions of the other. This is in contrast with a parliamentary system, where the majority party in the legislature that also serves as the executive is unlikely to scrutinize its actions. Writing about the [[Watergate scandal]], former British MP [[Woodrow Wyatt]] said, "Don't think a Watergate couldn't happen here, you just wouldn't hear about it."<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Schlesinger |first=Arthur |date=1974 |title=No Way to Curb the Executive |magazine=[[The New Republic]]}}</ref> The extent of this effect is debated. Some commentators argue that the effect is mitigated when the president's party is in power, while others note that [[party discipline]] is not as strictly enforced in presidential systems.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Depauw |first1=Sam |title=Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Governments |last2=Martin |first2=Shane |publisher=[[Routledge]] |year=2008 |editor-last=Giannetti |editor-first=Daniela |chapter=Legislative party discipline and cohesion in comparative perspective |editor-last2=Benoit |editor-first2=Kenneth}}</ref>

Supporters generally claim four basic advantages for presidential systems:

*'''Direct mandate''' &mdash; in a presidential system, the president is generally elected directly by the people. To some, this makes the president's power more legitimate than that of a leader appointed indirectly.

*'''Separation of powers''' &mdash; a presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. Supporters claim that this arrangement allows each structure to supervise the other, preventing abuses.

*'''Speed and decisiveness''' &mdash; some argue that a president with strong powers can usually enact changes quickly. However, others argue that the separation of powers slows the system down.

*'''Stability''' &mdash; a president, by virtue of a fixed term, may provide more stability than a prime minister who can be dismissed at any time.

Another stated benefit of the separation of powers is the ability of the legislature to enforce limits on the powers of the executive. 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]]. The presidential system has no such mechanism, and the legislature has little incentive to appease the president beyond saving face.{{Citation needed|date=March 2022}}

===Direct mandate===

A prime minister is usually chosen by a few individuals of 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 the legislative body was itself elected.

==== Efficiencies and inefficiencies ====

Through making more than one electoral choice voters in a presidential system can more accurately indicate their policy preferences. Some political scientists interpret the late [[Cold War]] tendency to elect a Democratic Congress and a Republican president as the choice for a Republican foreign policy and a Democratic domestic policy.

When an action is within the scope of a president's power, a presidential system can respond more rapidly to emerging situations than a parliamentary system. 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 [[House of Commons|Commons]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Kennedy |first=John F. |title=Why England Slept |publisher=[[Wilfred Funk|Wilfred Funk, Inc]] |year=1940}}</ref>

[[James Wilson (Founding Father)|James Wilson]], who advocated for a presidential system at the [[Constitutional Convention (United States)|constitutional convention]], maintained that a single chief executive would provide for greater public accountability than a group and thereby protect against tyranny by making it plain who was responsible for executive actions. He also submitted that a singular chief executive was necessary to ensure promptness and consistency and guard against deadlock, which could be essential in times of national emergency.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Yoo|first=Christopher S.|title=The Life and Career of Justice James Wilson|url=https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2019/06/17-1-Yoo.pdf|publisher=Georgetown Center for the Constitution|year=2019|isbn=978-1-7341939-2-3|editor-last=Barnett|editor-first=Randy E.|___location=Washington, D.C.|pages=55–57|chapter=James Wilson as the Architect of the American Presidency}}</ref>

It is also claimed that the direct mandate of a president makes him or her more accountable. The reasoning behind this argument is that a prime minister is "shielded" from public opinion by the apparatus of state, being several steps removed.

Conversely, a presidential system can produce [[Gridlock (politics)|gridlock]] when the president and the legislature are in opposition. This rarely happens in a parliamentary system, as the prime minister is always a member of the party in power. This gridlock is a common occurrence, as the electorate often expects more rapid results than are possible from new policies and switches to a different party at the next election.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last1=George |first1=Edwards |title=Government in America: People, Politics, and Policy, AP* Edition – 2016 Presidential Election, 17th Edition |last2=Warrenberg |first2=Martin |publisher=Pearson Higher Education |year=2016 |isbn=9780134586571 |pages=16}}</ref> Critics such as [[Juan Linz]], argue that in such cases of gridlock, presidential systems do not offer voters the kind of accountability seen in parliamentary systems and that this inherent political instability can cause democracies to fail, as seen in such cases as Brazil and [[Presidency of Salvador Allende|Allende's Chile]].<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last=Linz |first=Juan |date=1990 |title=The perils of presidentialism |journal=[[The Journal of Democracy]] |volume=1 |pages=51–69|doi=10.1353/jod.2005.0026 }}</ref>

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 the government in Washington".<ref name=":4">{{cite book |last=Sundquist |first=James |url=https://archive.org/details/constitutionalre00sund_1 |title=Constitutional Reform and Effective Government |publisher=Brookings Institution Press |year=1992 |page=[https://archive.org/details/constitutionalre00sund_1/page/11 11] |url-access=registration}}</ref> Years before becoming president, [[Woodrow Wilson]] famously wrote "how is the schoolmaster, the nation, to know which boy needs the whipping?"<ref name="PhD_pp186-187">Wilson, ''Congressional Government'' (1885), pp. 186–187.</ref> [[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 which others [and not itself] will suffer the effects".<ref name="Bagehot">{{cite book |last=Balfour |title=The English Constitution |chapter=The Cabinet}}</ref>

===Separation of powers===

A 2024 meta-analytical review found that presidential systems were associated with more corruption than parliamentary systems.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal |last1=Dawson |first1=Stephen |last2=Schwenk |first2=Jana |last3=Xezonakis |first3=Georgios |date=2024-10-04 |title=The Distribution of Executive Power and Corruption: A Meta-Analytical Review |journal=Comparative Political Studies |language=en |doi=10.1177/00104140241290213 |issn=0010-4140|doi-access=free }}</ref>

The fact that a presidential system separates the executive from the legislature is sometimes held up as an advantage, in that each branch may scrutinise 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 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.

=== Presidential elections ===

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 have new elections, a step few [[backbencher]]s are willing to take. 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)

{{Main|Fixed-term election}}

In a presidential system, the president is elected independently of the legislature. This may be done directly through a popular vote or indirectly, such as through the [[United States electoral college|electoral college]] used in the United States. This aspect of the presidential system is sometimes touted as more democratic, as it provides a broader mandate for the president. Once elected, a president typically remains in office until the conclusion of a term.<ref name=":2" />

===Speed= andFixed-terms decisiveness====

Presidential systems are typically understood as having a head of government elected by citizens to serve one or more fixed terms. Fixed terms are praised for providing a level of stability that other systems lack.

Some supporters of presidential systems claim 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 president [[John F. Kennedy]] said that [[Stanley Baldwin]] and [[Neville Chamberlain]] were constrained by the need to maintain the confidence of the Commons.

Proponents of the presidential system also argue that stability extends to the cabinets chosen under the system. In most parliamentary systems, 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.

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 parties, and guarantee bipartisan input into legislation. In the United States, Republican Congressman [[Bill Frenzel]] wrote in 1995:

Some political scientists dispute this concept of stability, arguing that presidential systems have difficulty sustaining democratic practices and that they have slipped into authoritarianism in many of the countries in which they have been implemented. According to political scientist [[Fred Riggs]], presidential systems have fallen into authoritarianism in nearly every country where they've been attempted.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Riggs |first1=Fred W. |year=1997 |title=Presidentialism versus Parliamentarism: Implications for Representativeness and Legitimacy |journal=International Political Science Review |volume=18 |issue=3 |page=258 |doi=10.1177/019251297018003003 |jstor=1601343 |s2cid=145450791}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |year=1994 |title=Conceptual homogenization of a heterogeneous field: Presidentialism in comparative perspective |journal=Comparing Nations: Concepts, Strategies, Substance |pages=72–152}}</ref> The list of the world's 22 older democracies includes only two countries (Costa Rica and the United States) with presidential systems.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Dahl |first=Robert A. |title=How Democratic Is the American Constitution? |year=2001 |publisher=Yale University Press |isbn=0-300-09218-0}}</ref> Yale political scientist Juan Linz argues that:<ref name=":3" />

: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)

{{blockquote|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.}}

Despite a president's weakness in Congress, checks and balances did not interfere with the legislative programs of Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, or Lyndon Johnson.

Fixed terms in a presidential system may also be considered a check on the powers of the executive, contrasting with parliamentary systems, which may allow the prime minister to call elections whenever they see fit or orchestrate their vote of no confidence to trigger an election when they cannot get a legislative item passed.

===Stability===

Although votes of no confidence tend to be rare in some parliamentary systems, they are common in a few others. [[Italy]], [[Israel]] and the [[French Fourth Republic]] all have or had problems with governmental stability. When parliamentary systems have multiple parties and governments depend on coalitions, as they do with nations that vote by [[proportional representation]], extremist parties can theoretically use the threat of leaving the coalition to blackmail the centrist parties who are leading.

==== Limited mechanisms of removal ====

Many people consider presidential systems to be 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 War of Independence|Algerian controversy]] switched to a [[semi-presidential system]], [[Sri Lanka]] did likewise during its civil war, and [[Israel]] experimented with a directly elected prime minister in 1992. In at least the first two cases, the results are widely considered to have been positive. In the Israeli case, however, direct election of the prime minister produced an unanticipated further proliferation of small parties, and the traditional parliamentary mode of selection was restored.

Unlike in parliamentary systems, the legislature does not have the power to recall a president under the presidential system.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last=Sargentich |first=Thomas O. |date=1993 |title=The Presidential and Parliamentary Models of National Government |journal=[[American University International Law Review]] |volume=8 |issue=2 |pages=579–592}}</ref> However, presidential systems may have methods to remove presidents under extraordinary circumstances, such as a president committing a crime or becoming incapacitated. In some countries, presidents are [[Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution|subject to term limits.]]

The inability to remove a president early is also the subject of criticism. 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".<ref>{{cite book |last=Balfour |title=The English Constitution |chapter=Introduction}}</ref>

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 orchestrate his own 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 cannot alter to suit his own needs.

The consistency of a presidency may be seen as beneficial during times of crisis. When in a time of crisis, countries may be better off being led by a president with a fixed term than rotating premierships.{{Citation needed|date=March 2022}} Some critics, however, argue that the presidential system is weaker because it does not allow a transfer of power in the event of an emergency. [[Walter Bagehot]] argues that the ideal ruler in times of calm is different from the ideal ruler in times of crisis, criticizing the presidential system for having no mechanism to make such a change.<ref name="Bagehot" />

==Perceived disadvantages of presidential systems==

Critics generally claim three basic disadvantages for presidential systems:

*'''Tendency towards authoritarianism''' &mdash; some political scientists say that the presidentialism is not constitutionally stable. According to some political scientists, such as Fred Riggs, presidentialism has fallen into authoritarianism in every country it has been attempted.

*'''Separation of powers''' &mdash; a presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. Critics argue that this creates undesirable gridlock, and that it reduces accountability by allowing the president and the legislature to shift blame to each other.

*'''Impediments to leadership change''' &mdash; it is claimed that the difficulty in removing an unsuitable president from office before his or her term has expired represents a significant problem.

==== Heightened status ====

===Tendency towards authoritarianism===

[[Image:Form of government with Freedom House2.png|right|350px|thumb|Map showing Presidential systems considered to be electoral democracies by [[Freedom House]] in '''blue''' and those considered not to be in '''red'''.]]

Winning the presidency is a winner-take-all, zero-sum prize &mdash; unlike a prime minister, who may have to form a coalition, a president's party can rule without any allies for the duration of one or possibly consecutive terms, a worrisome situation for many interest groups. [[Juan Linz]] argues that

The president's status as both [[head of government]] and [[head of state]] is sometimes the subject of criticism. [[Dana D. Nelson]] criticizes the office of the President of the United States as essentially undemocratic and characterizes presidentialism as worship of the president by citizens, which she believes undermines civic participation.<ref name="twsSEPvsnfl">{{cite book |last=Nelson |first=Dana D. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qgAWphms5oMC&q=Dana+Nelson+vanderbilt%3F+%22bad+for+democracy%22&pg=PA223 |title=Bad for Democracy: How the Presidency Undermines the Power of the People |publisher=[[University of Minnesota Press]] |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-8166-5677-6 |___location=Minneapolis, Minnesota |page=248 |author-link=Dana D. Nelson}}</ref><ref name="twsSEPnn4r56">{{cite web |last=Sirota |first=David |author-link=David Sirota |date=August 22, 2008 |title=Why cult of presidency is bad for democracy |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/21/EDCQ12G3M0.DTL |access-date=2009-09-20 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]]}}</ref> <!--British-Irish philosopher and MP [[Edmund Burke]] argued 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 and then do what he believes is best for his constituents and country as a whole, even if it means short-term backlash. Thus defenders of presidential systems hold that sometimes what is [[Trustee model of representation|wisest may not always be the most popular decision]] and vice versa.{{Citation needed|date=March 2022}}-->

: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.

==== Political budget cycles ====

Constitutions that only require plurality support are said to be especially undesirable, as significant power can be vested in a person who does not enjoy support from a majority of the population.

A 2019 peer-reviewed [[Meta-analysis|meta-analysis]] based on 1,037 regressions in 46 studies finds that presidential systems generally seem to favor revenue cuts, while parliamentary systems would rely on fiscal expansion characterized by a higher level of spending before an election.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cazals|first1=A. |last2=Mandon |first2=P. |year=2019 |title=Political Budget Cycles: Manipulation by Leaders versus Manipulation by Researchers? Evidence from a Meta-Regression Analysis. |journal=[[Journal of Economic Surveys]] |volume=33 |issue=1 |pages=274–308 |doi=10.1111/joes.12263 |s2cid=158322229 |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/joes.12263|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

Some political scientists go further, and argue that presidential systems have difficulty sustaining democratic practices, noting that presidentialism has slipped into authoritarianism in many of the countries in which it has been implemented. [[Seymour Martin Lipset]] and others are careful to point out that this has taken place in political cultures unconducive to democracy, and that militaries have tended to play a prominent role in most of these countries. Nevertheless, certain aspects of the presidential system may have played a role in some situations.

== Comparative politics ==

In a presidential system, the legislature and the president have equally valid mandates from the public. There is often no way to reconcile conflict between the branches of government. When president and legislature are at loggerheads and government is not working effectively, there is a powerful incentive to employ extra-constitutional maneuvres to break the deadlock.

The separation of the executive and the legislature is the key difference between a presidential system and a parliamentary system. The presidential system elects a head of government independently of the legislature, while in contrast, the head of government in a parliamentary system answers directly to the legislature. Presidential systems necessarily operate under the principle of structural separation of powers, while parliamentary systems do not;<ref name=":1" /> however, the degree of functional separation of powers exhibited in each varies – [[Dualism (politics)|dualistic parliamentary systems]] such as the Netherlands, Sweden and Slovakia forbid members of the legislature from serving in the executive simultaneously, while [[Westminster system|Westminster-type parliamentary systems]] such as the [[United Kingdom]] require it. Heads of government under the presidential system do not depend on the approval of the legislature as they do in a parliamentary system (except for mechanisms such as impeachment).<ref name=":2" />

The presidential system and the parliamentary system can also be blended into a [[semi-presidential system]]. Under such a system, executive power is shared by an elected head of state (a president) and a legislature-appointed head of government (a prime minister or premier). The amount of power each figure holds may vary, and a semi-presidential system may lean closer to one system over the other.<ref name=":2" /> The president typically retains authority over foreign policy in a semi-presidential system.{{Citation needed|date=March 2022}} A pure presidential system may also have mechanisms that resemble those of a parliamentary system as part of [[Checks and Balances|checks and balances]]. The legislature may have oversight of some of the president's decisions through [[advice and consent]], and mechanisms such as [[impeachment]] may allow the legislature to remove the president under drastic circumstances.{{Citation needed|date=March 2022}}

[[Ecuador]] is sometimes presented as a case study of democratic failures over the past quarter-century. Presidents have ignored the legislature or bypassed it altogether. One president had the National Assembly teargassed, while another was kidnapped by paratroopers until he agreed to certain congressional demands. From 1979 through 1988, Ecuador staggered through a succession of executive-legislative confrontations that created a near permanent crisis atmosphere in the policy. In 1984, President [[León Febres-Cordero]] tried to physically bar new Congressionally-appointed supreme court appointees from taking their seats. [[Colombia]] has similarly exhibited the problems said to be inherent in presidentialism in the last twenty years. Presidents have also gone around Congress to legislate and simply to govern. In [[Brazil]], presidents have accomplished their objectives by creating executive agencies over which Congress had no say (Checks and Balances, pp 34-35).

=== Presidentialism metrics ===

===Separation of powers===

Presidentialism metrics allow a quantitative comparison of the strength of presidential system characteristics for individual countries. Presidentialism metrics include the presidential index in [[V-Dem Democracy indices]]<ref name="v-dem">{{cite journal | url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3066654 | doi=10.2139/ssrn.3066654 | title=Neopatrimonialism and Democracy: An Empirical Investigation of Africa's Political Regimes | year=2017 | last1=Sigman | first1=Rachel | last2=Lindberg | first2=Staffan I. |journal=V-Dem Working Paper 2017:56 | hdl=2077/54296 | s2cid=158437511 | hdl-access=free | url-access=subscription }}</ref> and presidential power scores.<ref>{{cite journal | doi=10.1017/S0007123414000465 | title=Maximizing the Reliability of Cross-National Measures of Presidential Power | year=2016 | last1=Doyle | first1=David | last2=Elgie | first2=Robert | journal=British Journal of Political Science | volume=46 | issue=4 | pages=731–741 | doi-access=free }}</ref> The table below shows for individual countries the V-Dem presidential index, where higher values indicate higher concentration of political power in the hands of one individual.

Presidential systems are said by critics not to offer voters the kind of accountability seen in parliamentary systems. It is easy for either the president or Congress to escape blame by blaming 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." (Checks and Balances, 10).

{{Sticky header}}

{| class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed sticky-header"

! Country !! Presidentialism Index for 2021<ref name="v-dem"/>

|-

| {{flaglist| Afghanistan }} || 0.934

|-

| {{flaglist| Albania }} || 0.22

|-

| {{flaglist| Algeria }} || 0.807

|-

| {{flaglist| Angola }} || 0.627

|-

| {{flaglist| Argentina }} || 0.203

|-

| {{flaglist| Armenia }} || 0.297

|-

| {{flaglist| Australia }} || 0.01

|-

| {{flaglist| Austria }} || 0.047

|-

| {{flaglist| Azerbaijan }} || 0.965

|-

| {{flaglist| Bahrain }} || 0.917

|-

| {{flaglist| Bangladesh }} || 0.711

|-

| {{flaglist| Barbados }} || 0.091

|-

| {{flaglist| Belarus }} || 0.98

|-

| {{flaglist| Belgium }} || 0.051

|-

| {{flaglist| Benin }} || 0.419

|-

| {{flaglist| Bhutan }} || 0.117

|-

| {{flaglist| Bolivia }} || 0.535

|-

| {{flaglist| Bosnia and Herzegovina }} || 0.327

|-

| {{flaglist| Botswana }} || 0.176

|-

| {{flaglist| Brazil }} || 0.136

|-

| {{flaglist| Bulgaria }} || 0.16

|-

| {{flaglist| Burkina Faso }} || 0.314

|-

| {{flaglist| Myanmar }} || 0.879

|-

| {{flaglist| Burundi }} || 0.801

|-

| {{flaglist| Cambodia }} || 0.88

|-

| {{flaglist| Cameroon }} || 0.873

|-

| {{flaglist| Canada }} || 0.08

|-

| {{flaglist| Cape Verde }} || 0.098

|-

| {{flaglist| Central African Republic }} || 0.618

|-

| {{flaglist| Chad }} || 0.929

|-

| {{flaglist| Chile }} || 0.019

|-

| {{flaglist| China }} || 0.891

|-

| {{flaglist| Colombia }} || 0.133

|-

| {{flaglist| Comoros }} || 0.833

|-

| {{flaglist| Costa Rica }} || 0.033

|-

| {{flaglist| Croatia }} || 0.107

|-

| {{flaglist| Cuba }} || 0.806

|-

| {{flaglist| Cyprus }} || 0.151

|-

| {{flaglist| Czech Republic }} || 0.09

|-

| {{flaglist| Democratic Republic of the Congo }} || 0.689

|-

| {{flaglist| Denmark }} || 0.012

|-

| {{flaglist| Djibouti }} || 0.751

|-

| {{flaglist| Dominican Republic }} || 0.181

|-

| {{flaglist| Ecuador }} || 0.397

|-

| {{flaglist| Egypt }} || 0.494

|-

| {{flaglist| El Salvador }} || 0.855

|-

| {{flaglist| Equatorial Guinea }} || 0.966

|-

| {{flaglist| Eritrea }} || 0.977

|-

| {{flaglist| Estonia }} || 0.033

|-

| {{flaglist| Eswatini }} || 0.707

|-

| {{flaglist| Ethiopia }} || 0.735

|-

| {{flaglist| Fiji }} || 0.525

|-

| {{flaglist| Finland }} || 0.022

|-

| {{flaglist| France }} || 0.068

|-

| {{flaglist| Gabon }} || 0.752

|-

| {{flaglist| Georgia }} || 0.282

|-

| {{flaglist| Germany }} || 0.033

|-

| {{flaglist| Ghana }} || 0.13

|-

| {{flaglist| Greece }} || 0.12

|-

| {{flaglist| Guatemala }} || 0.351

|-

| {{flaglist| Guinea }} || 0.764

|-

| {{flaglist| Guinea-Bissau }} || 0.413

|-

| {{flaglist| Guyana }} || 0.276

|-

| {{flaglist| Haiti }} || 0.706

|-

| {{flaglist| Honduras }} || 0.402

|-

| {{flaglist| Hong Kong }} || 0.569

|-

| {{flaglist| Hungary }} || 0.288

|-

| {{flaglist| Iceland }} || 0.051

|-

| {{flaglist| India }} || 0.227

|-

| {{flaglist| Indonesia }} || 0.206

|-

| {{flaglist| Iran }} || 0.812

|-

| {{flaglist| Iraq }} || 0.484

|-

| {{flaglist| Ireland }} || 0.04

|-

| {{flaglist| Israel }} || 0.1

|-

| {{flaglist| Italy }} || 0.089

|-

| {{flaglist| Ivory Coast }} || 0.532

|-

| {{flaglist| Jamaica }} || 0.084

|-

| {{flaglist| Japan }} || 0.135

|-

| {{flaglist| Jordan }} || 0.25

|-

| {{flaglist| Kazakhstan }} || 0.807

|-

| {{flaglist| Kenya }} || 0.132

|-

| {{flaglist| Kosovo }} || 0.296

|-

| {{flaglist| Kuwait }} || 0.317

|-

| {{flaglist| Kyrgyzstan }} || 0.614

|-

| {{flaglist| Laos }} || 0.59

|-

| {{flaglist| Latvia }} || 0.036

|-

| {{flaglist| Lebanon }} || 0.539

|-

| {{flaglist| Lesotho }} || 0.123

|-

| {{flaglist| Liberia }} || 0.296

|-

| {{flaglist| Libya }} || 0.479

|-

| {{flaglist| Lithuania }} || 0.025

|-

| {{flaglist| Luxembourg }} || 0.092

|-

| {{flaglist| Madagascar }} || 0.677

|-

| {{flaglist| Malawi }} || 0.136

|-

| {{flaglist| Malaysia }} || 0.354

|-

| {{flaglist| Maldives }} || 0.211

|-

| {{flaglist| Mali }} || 0.623

|-

| {{flaglist| Malta }} || 0.131

|-

| {{flaglist| Mauritania }} || 0.74

|-

| {{flaglist| Mauritius }} || 0.194

|-

| {{flaglist| Mexico }} || 0.369

|-

| {{flaglist| Moldova }} || 0.122

|-

| {{flaglist| Mongolia }} || 0.207

|-

| {{flaglist| Montenegro }} || 0.246

|-

| {{flaglist| Morocco }} || 0.348

|-

| {{flaglist| Mozambique }} || 0.442

|-

| {{flaglist| Namibia }} || 0.207

|-

| {{flaglist| Nepal }} || 0.213

|-

| {{flaglist| Netherlands }} || 0.028

|-

| {{flaglist| New Zealand }} || 0.016

|-

| {{flaglist| Nicaragua }} || 0.987

|-

| {{flaglist| Niger }} || 0.32

|-

| {{flaglist| Nigeria }} || 0.36

|-

| {{flaglist| North Korea }} || 0.986

|-

| {{flaglist| North Macedonia }} || 0.46

|-

| {{flaglist| Norway }} || 0.015

|-

| {{flaglist| Oman }} || 0.574

|-

| {{flaglist| Pakistan }} || 0.286

|-

| {{flaglist| Palestine }} (Gaza) || 0.807

|-

| {{flaglist| Palestine }} (West Bank) || 0.585

|-

| {{flaglist| Panama }} || 0.297

|-

| {{flaglist| Papua New Guinea }} || 0.197

|-

| {{flaglist| Paraguay }} || 0.258

|-

| {{flaglist| Peru }} || 0.094

|-

| {{flaglist| Philippines }} || 0.35

|-

| {{flaglist| Poland }} || 0.361

|-

| {{flaglist| Portugal }} || 0.056

|-

| {{flaglist| Qatar }} || 0.716

|-

| {{flaglist| Republic of the Congo }} || 0.779

|-

| {{flaglist| Romania }} || 0.184

|-

| {{flaglist| Russia }} || 0.898

|-

| {{flaglist| Rwanda }} || 0.738

|-

| {{flaglist| Sao Tome and Principe }} || 0.213

|-

| {{flaglist| Saudi Arabia }} || 0.814

|-

| {{flaglist| Senegal }} || 0.236

|-

| {{flaglist| Serbia }} || 0.404

|-

| {{flaglist| Seychelles }} || 0.055

|-

| {{flaglist| Sierra Leone }} || 0.296

|-

| {{flaglist| Singapore }} || 0.298

|-

| {{flaglist| Slovakia }} || 0.047

|-

| {{flaglist| Slovenia }} || 0.159

|-

| {{flaglist| Solomon Islands }} || 0.216

|-

| {{flaglist| Somalia }} || 0.756

|-

| {{flaglist| Somaliland }} || 0.599

|-

| {{flaglist| South Africa }} || 0.13

|-

| {{flaglist| South Korea }} || 0.076

|-

| {{flaglist| South Sudan }} || 0.881

|-

| {{flaglist| Spain }} || 0.031

|-

| {{flaglist| Sri Lanka }} || 0.252

|-

| {{flaglist| Sudan }} || 0.692

|-

| {{flaglist| Suriname }} || 0.126

|-

| {{flaglist| Sweden }} || 0.02

|-

| {{flaglist| Switzerland }} || 0.013

|-

| {{flaglist| Syria }} || 0.922

|-

| {{flaglist| Taiwan }} || 0.15

|-

| {{flaglist| Tajikistan }} || 0.943

|-

| {{flaglist| Tanzania }} || 0.15

|-

| {{flaglist| Thailand }} || 0.419

|-

| {{flaglist| The Gambia }} || 0.131

|-

| {{flaglist| Timor-Leste }} || 0.29

|-

| {{flaglist| Togo }} || 0.804

|-

| {{flaglist| Trinidad and Tobago }} || 0.113

|-

| {{flaglist| Tunisia }} || 0.113

|-

| {{flaglist| Turkey }} || 0.722

|-

| {{flaglist| Turkmenistan }} || 0.907

|-

| {{flaglist| Uganda }} || 0.411

|-

| {{flaglist| Ukraine }} || 0.597

|-

| {{flaglist| United Arab Emirates }} || 0.835

|-

| {{flaglist| United Kingdom }} || 0.062

|-

| {{flaglist| United States of America }} || 0.078

|-

| {{flaglist| Uruguay }} || 0.045

|-

| {{flaglist| Uzbekistan }} || 0.905

|-

| {{flaglist| Vanuatu }} || 0.102

|-

| {{flaglist| Venezuela }} || 0.958

|-

| {{flaglist| Vietnam }} || 0.726

|-

| {{flaglist| Yemen }} || 0.884

|-

| {{flaglist| Zambia }} || 0.277

|-

| {{flaglist| Zanzibar }} || 0.591

|-

| {{flaglist| Zimbabwe }} || 0.592

|}

=== Subnational governments ===

In Congressional Government, [[Woodrow Wilson]] asked,

{{See also|State governments of the United States}}

Subnational governments 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. In these cases, instead of the title of the President, the role has the title of Governor. On a local level, a presidential system might be organized with the office of the Mayor acting as the president. 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.

:. . . how is the schoolmaster, the nation, to know which boy needs the whipping? . . . Power and strict accountability for its use are the essential constituents of good government. . . . It is, therefore, manifestly a radical defect in our federal system that it parcels out power and confuses responsibility as it does. The main purpose of the Convention of 1787 seems to have been to accomplish this grievous mistake. The `literary theory' of checks and balances is simply a consistent account of what our constititution makers tried to do; and those checks and balances have proved mischievous just to the extent which they have succeeded in establishing themselves . . . [the Framers] would be the first to admit that the only fruit of dividing power had been to make it irresponsible.(Congressional Government, 186-7)

== States with a presidential system of government ==

Consider the example of the increase in the federal debt that occurred during the presidency of [[Ronald Reagan]]. Arguably, the deficits were the product of a bargain between President Reagan and Speaker of the House of Representatives [[Tip O'Neill]]: O'Neill agreed not to oppose Reagan's tax cuts if Reagan would sign the Democrats' budget. Each side could claim to be displeased with the debt, plausibly blame the other side for the deficit, and still tout their own success. On the other hand, many observers believe that the budget surpluses of the late 1990's were a direct result of divided government. A Republican Congress refused to allow Democratic President Bill Clinton to increase domestic spending, while Clinton refused to allow Congress to cut taxes. The combination of spending restraint and high revenues led to the elimination of the annual budget deficit.

{{more sources|section|date=April 2024}}

{{Excerpt|List of countries by system of government|Presidential systems|subsections=yes}}

=== Presidential system in administrative divisions ===

===Impediments to leadership change===

'''Dependencies of the United States'''

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 till the moment comes for a new election." (Balfour, intro to the English Constitution). Consider [[John Tyler]], who only became president because [[William Henry Harrison]] had died after thirty days. Tyler refused to sign Whig legislation, was loathed by his nominal party, but remained firmly in control of the executive branch. Since there is no legal way to remove an unpopular president, many presidential countries have experienced military coups to remove a leader who is said to have lost his mandate, as in [[Salvador Allende]]. Presumably, in a parliamentary system, the unpopular leader could have been removed by a vote of no confidence, a device which is a "pressure release valve" for political tension.

* {{flag|American Samoa}}

In ''The English Constitution,'' [[Walter Bagehot]] criticized presidentialism because it does not allow a transfer in power in the event of an emergency.

* {{flag|Guam}}

* {{flag|Northern Mariana Islands}}

* {{flag|Puerto Rico}}

* {{flag|United States Virgin Islands}}

'''Special administrative regions of China'''

: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.

*{{HKG}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ipm.edu.mo/cntfiles/upload/docs/research/common/1country_2systems/academic_eng/issue4/09.pdf|title=The Executive Authorities and the Legislature in the Political Structure of the Hong Kong SAR|last=Chen|first=Albert Hung Yee|date=n.d.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170329110928/http://www.ipm.edu.mo/cntfiles/upload/docs/research/common/1country_2systems/academic_eng/issue4/09.pdf|archive-date=2017-03-29|url-status=dead}}</ref>

*{{MAC}}

=== Former presidential republics ===

: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 . . . (The English Constitution, the Cabinet.)

*{{flag|Islamic Republic of Afghanistan}} (2004–2021)

*{{flag|Armenia}} (1998–2013){{efn|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.}}

*{{flag|Azerbaijan SSR}}/{{flag|Azerbaijan|1991}} (1990–1991, 1992–2016){{efn|as the [[Azerbaijan SSR]], it was a [[presidential republic]] in 1990–1991, a [[semi-presidential republic]] after [[Azerbaijan Republic|independence]] in 1991–1992, a [[presidential republic]] in 1992–2016 and a [[semi-presidential republic]] in 2016. Under a [[hereditary dictatorship]] since 1993}}

*{{BGD|1990}} (1975–1991){{efn|[[Parliamentary republic|Parliamentary]] in 1972–1975, [[President (government title)|presidential]] in 1975–1991, and parliamentary since 1991.}}

*{{flag|Cuba|1902}} (1902–1959)

*{{flag|Estonia}} (1938–1940)

*{{flag|Georgia|1990}} (1995–2004){{efn|as the [[Georgian SSR]] and after independence, [[parliamentary]] in 1990–1991, [[semi-presidential]] in 1991–1995, [[President (government title)|presidential]] in 1995–2004, [[semi-presidential]] in 2004–2019 and [[parliamentary]] since 2019.}}

*{{flagcountry|Weimar Republic}} (1930–1933) ''de facto''{{efn|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 1933–1945 as a [[Nazi Germany]], a [[Allied-occupied Germany|military occupation]] in 1945–1949 and a [[parliamentary republic]] in 1949.}}{{failed verification|date=January 2022}}

*{{GRC}} ([[First Hellenic Republic|1822–1832]],<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://www.hellenicparliament.gr/UserFiles/f3c70a23-7696-49db-9148-f24dce6a27c8/syn09.pdf |title=Πολιτικὸν Σύνταγμα τῆς Ἑλλάδος |trans-title=Political Constitution of Greece |chapter=Κεφάλαιον Ε' {{endash}} Περὶ συντάξεως τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς πολιτείας |lang=Greek |trans-chapter=Chapter 5 {{endash}} Concerning the organisation of the Hellenic state |quote=Ἡ νομοτελεστικὴ [ἐξουσία] ἀνήκει εἰς ἕνα μόνον ὀνομαζόμενον Κυβερνήτην, ἔχοντα διαφόρους ὑπ' αὐτὸν γραμματεῖς τῆς ἐπικρατείας. |trans-quote=The Executive [power] belongs solely to one [individual] titled Governor, who has under him state secretaries. |___location=[[Troezen]] |date=5 May 1827 |publisher=[[Third National Assembly at Troezen|Third National Assembly]] |via=the [[Hellenic Parliament]] |access-date=29 December 2024 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110705000814/https://www.hellenicparliament.gr/UserFiles/f3c70a23-7696-49db-9148-f24dce6a27c8/syn09.pdf |archive-date=5 July 2011}}</ref> [[Greek junta|1973–1974]])

*{{flag|Haiti}} ([[Republic of Haiti (1859–1957)|1859–1957]], [[Duvalier dynasty|1957–1986]])

*{{Flag|Katanga}} (1960–1963)

*{{flag|Kirghiz SSR}}/{{flag|Kyrgyzstan|1992}} (1990–1993){{efn|[[President (government title)|Presidential]] in 1990–1993, [[Semi-presidential system|Semi-presidential]] in 1993–2010 (''de jure''); 1993–2021 (''de facto''), [[Parliamentary republic|Parliamentary]] in 2010–2021 (''de jure''), and presidential again in 2021.}}

*{{Flagicon image|Flag of Mali.svg}} [[Mali]] (1960–1992){{efn|A presidential republic (1960–1991, 2023-present), military dictatorship (1968–1991,1991–1992, 2012, 2020-present) single-party state (1960–1968, 1974–1991) semi-presidential republic (1991–2023).}}

*{{Flag|Mauritania}} (1960–1978){{efn|A one-party presidential republic (1960–1978), military dictatorship (1978–1992, 2005–2007, 2008–2009), semi-presidential republic since 1992.}}

*{{Flagicon image|Flag of Niger.svg}} [[Niger]] (1960–1974, 1989–1993){{efn|A [[One-party state|single-party]] presidential republic (1960–1974, 1989–1993), a [[military dictatorship]] (1974–1993, 1996–1999, 1999, 2010–2011, 2023-present), a [[Semi-presidential system|semi-presidential]] republic (1993–1996, 1999–2010, 2011–2023)}}

*{{flag|Pakistan}} (1958–1973, 1978–1985, 2001–2002)

*{{flagcountry|Second Polish Republic}} (1935–[[Invasion of Poland|1939]])

*{{flag|RSFSR}}/{{flag|Russia|1991}} ([[Cabinet of Boris Yeltsin and Yegor Gaidar|1991–1992]]) ''de facto''

*{{flag|South Korea|1949}} (1963–1972){{efn|All South Korean constitutions since 1963 provided for a strong executive Presidency; in addition, the formally authoritarian [[Yushin Constitution]] of the [[Fourth Republic of Korea|Fourth Republic]] established a presidential power to dissolve the [[National Assembly of South Korea|National Assembly]], nominally counterbalanced by a vote of no confidence. Both of these provisions were retained by the [[Fifth Republic of Korea|Fifth Republic's constitution]] but repealed upon the transition to democracy and the establishment of the [[Sixth Republic of Korea|Sixth Republic]]}}

*{{flag|South Vietnam}} (1955–1975){{Cn|date=November 2022}}

*{{flagcountry|Ba'athist Syria}} (1963–2024)

*{{flag|Tajik SSR}} (1990–1991)

*{{flag|Togo}} (1960-2024)

*{{flag|Turkmen SSR}} (1990–1991)

*{{flag|Ukraine|1992}} (1995–1996){{efn|An interim constitution passed in 1995 removed the President's ability to dissolve the [[Verkhovna Rada]] and Rada's ability to dismiss the government by a vote of no confidence. Both of these provisions were restored upon the passage of a permanent constitution in 1996.}}

*{{flag|Uzbek SSR}} (1990–1991)

====Republics with executive governors====

*[[Vermont Republic]] (1777–1791)

*[[United Provinces of the Río de la Plata]] (1820–1832) and [[Argentine Confederation]] (1835–1852)

*[[Alabama in the American Civil War|Alabama]] (1861–1865)

*[[Georgia in the American Civil War|Georgia]] (1861–1865)

*[[Louisiana in the American Civil War|Louisiana]] (1861–1865)

*[[Texas in the American Civil War|Texas]] (1861–1865)

*[[Mississippi in the American Civil War|Mississippi]] (1861–1865)

*[[South Carolina in the American Civil War|South Carolina]] (1861–1865)

*[[Florida in the American Civil War|Florida]] (1861–1865)

*[[Virginia in the American Civil War|Virginia]] (1861–1865)

*[[Arkansas in the American Civil War|Arkansas]] (1861–1865)

*[[North Carolina in the American Civil War|North Carolina]] (1861–1865)

*[[Tennessee in the American Civil War|Tennessee]] (1861–1865)

*[[Confederate government of Missouri|Missouri]] (1861–1865)

*[[Confederate government of Kentucky|Kentucky]] (1861–1865)

== Notes ==

Years later, Bagehot's observation came to life during World War II, when [[Neville Chamberlain]] was replaced with [[Winston Churchill]].

{{notelist}}

== References ==

Finally, many have criticized presidential systems for their alleged slowness in responding to their citizens' needs. Often, the checks and balances make action extremely 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." (ibid.)

{{Reflist|30em}}

==Differences from a cabinet system==

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

* In a presidential system, the central principle is that the [[legislative]] and [[executive (government)|executive]] branches of government should be 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. In addition he or she does not need to choose cabinet members commanding the support of the legislature. By contrast, in [[parliamentary system|parliamentarism]], 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 (regardless of whether it is called a ''"parliament",'' a ''"diet",'' 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 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 weighed majority to override the veto. However, it is extremely rare for the president to have the power to directly propose laws, or cast a vote on legislation. 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.

Presidential systems also have fewer ideological parties than parliamentary systems {{Citation needed}}. Sometimes in the United States, the policies preferred by the two parties have been very similar (but ''see also'' [[polarization (politics)|polarization]]). In the 1960s, during the leadership of [[Lyndon Johnson]], the Senate Democrats included the [[right-wing politics|right]]-most members of the chamber - [[Harry Byrd]] and [[Strom Thurmond]], and the [[left-wing politics|left]]-most members - [[Paul Douglas]] and [[Herbert Lehman]]. This pattern prevails in Latin American presidential democracies and the Philippines as well.

===The reality===

In reality, elements of both systems overlap. Though a president in a presidential system does not have to choose a government ''answerable'' to the legislature, the legislature may have the right to scrutinise 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 [[United States Senate|Senate]]. By contrast, though answerable ''to'' parliament, a parliamentary system's cabinet may be able to make use of the parliamentary '[[Whip (politics)|whip]]' (an obligation on party members in parliament to vote with their party) to control and dominate parliament, reducing its ability to control the government.

Some countries, such as [[France]] have similarly evolved to such a degree that they can no longer be accurately described as either presidential or parliamentary-style governments, and are instead grouped under the category of [[semi-presidential system]].

==Democracies with a presidential system of government==

[[United States|United States of America]], [[Mexico]], [[Puerto Rico]], [[Colombia]], [[Ecuador]], [[Bolivia]], [[Brazil]], [[South Africa]], [[Nigeria]], [[Indonesia]], [[Philippines]], [[Argentina]], [[Peru]], [[Chile]], & [[Afghanistan]], most states in the Americas.

Note: Many legislators, including the [[President of the Philippines]], want a [[constitutional amendment]] to switch from a presidential to [[parliamentary system|parliamentary]] form of government.

==Footnotes==

<div class="references-small">

<references/>

</div>

==See also==

*[[List of democracy and elections-related topics]]

*[[Parliamentary system]]

*[[Semi-presidential system]]

== External links ==

* [http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/english/issue.asp?param=108&art=573 The Great Debate: Parliament versus Congress]

*http://www.idea.int/publications/democracy_and_deep_rooted_conflict/ebook_chapter4_3.html

* Castagnola, Andrea/Pérez-Liñán, Aníbal: [http://hup.sub.uni-hamburg.de/giga/jpla/article/view/41/41 Presidential Control of High Courts in Latin America: A Long-term View (1904-2006)], in Journal of Politics in Latin America, Hamburg 2009.

*http://www2.hawaii.edu/~fredr/pres.htm

*http://www.cebem.com/centdocum/documentos/d-parlamen.htm

{{Government}}

== References ==

{{Authority control}}

* Bagehot, Walter, ''The English Constitution.'' (multiple printings)

* Colomer, Josep M. and Gabriel L. Negretto, ''Can Presidentialism Work Like Parliamentarism?'', Government and Opposition, 40, 1, 2005: 60-89.

* Lijphart, Arend, Ed, ''Parliamentary Versus Presidential Government (Oxford Readings in Politics and Government),'' Oxford University Press, 1992.

* ''Parliamentary Versus Presidential Government'' contains a number of articles which are directly quoted in this wikipedia article.

**''Leave the Constitution Alone'', Arthur M. Schlesinger.

**''The Centrality of Political Culture'', Seymour Martin Lipset.

**''Presidentialism: A Problematic Regime Type'', Fred W. Riggs.

* Linz, Juan, and Arturo Valenzuela, ''The Failure of Presidential Democracy: The Case of Latin America'' Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.

* Shugart, Matthew Søberg and John M. Carey. ''Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics.'' Cambridge: [[Cambridge University Press]], 1992.

* Manuel, Paul Christopher and Anne Marie Cammisa,''Checks & Balances: How a Parliamentary System Could Change American Politics,'' Westview Press, 1998.

:(The above book is intended for students who are just beginning to learn about comparative government.)

* [[Woodrow Wilson|Wilson, Woodrow]], ''Congressional Government,'' (multiple printings).

[[Category:Political systems]]

[[Category:Presidents|System]]

[[Category:Republicanism]]

[[Category:PoliticalSeparation systemsof powers]]

[[Category:SystemsTypes of democracy]]

[[Category :FormsTypes of governmentrepublics]]

[[ca:Presidencialisme]]

[[de:Präsidentielles Regierungssystem]]

[[es:Presidencialismo]]

[[fr:Régime présidentiel]]

[[gl:Presidencialismo]]

[[he:דמוקרטיה נשיאותית]]

[[ko:대통령제]]

[[it:Repubblica presidenziale]]

[[ja:大統領制]]

[[no:Presidentmodellen]]

[[nn:Presidentialisme]]

[[pt:Presidencialismo]]

[[ro:Republică prezidenţială]]

[[ru:Президентская республика]]

[[zh:總統制]]