This should sound familiar, especially to a United States citizen. This system, better known as presidential government, exists as the second form of democratic government. The first, parliamentary government was covered in a previous summary, but remains relevant in this one. When comparing the two systems, it is easy to see all the differences between parliamentary and presidential government. First and foremost, in a presidential government, parties are less unified than in parliamentary government, and there is no guarantee that the party that is controlling legislature is the same party holding presidency. Secondly, policy leadership is usually associated with the president rather than with a cabinet, as seen in parliamentary systems. Moreover, the president, designated by the constitution as commander-in-chief of a state's armed forces, is held personally responsible for directing the state's affairs in the event of emergency or war.
The difficulty in assigning responsibility for policy may seriously weaken a presidential system. Since voters have no way of pinning this responsibility on any one person, electoral choices become less significant. This, in turn, may lead public officials to behave irresponsibly if they are not clearly accountable for a policy. Similarly, the difficulty in forming comprehensive policy in a presidential system may also leave holes in the structure. In a fragmented system, such as presidential government, a bill can be blocked at several different points, which means that significantly more than a majority is needed in order to override the defensive systems. An example of such can be seen in the United States among a handful of policies that the population wants but that have been impossible to ratify, such as handgun control and the equal rights amendment.
It is important to note not just that there is a difference between parliamentary and presidential recruitment of executive leaders, but what the difference is as well. In a parliamentary system, nearly all leaders in the executive rise through an existing career in parliament. In a presidential system, however, recruitment into executive office is fairly independent of the government body's legislative parts. Essentially what this means is that those in a parliamentary system have much more knowledge of what they are getting. On the other hand, the executive members in a presidential system operate in virtual isolation, which may lead those on the “outside” to view executive staff as insensitive or arrogant. Another difference is seen in that the presidential system does not change throughout the course of a president's term, and he cannot be removed easily, regardless of changing circumstances. There exists another great difference between the two democratic systems: the split executive of parliamentary systems. In this split executive, the prime minister and cabinet are held responsible for administrative and political leadership, while another office is accountable for symbolic leadership. In a presidential system, all of these functions are united in one man - the president, and since the executive is weakened by the legislature not being under its control, anything to strengthen the president's hand that can be done, should be done. In this situation, parliamentary government is definitely the stronger of the two, as political leadership does not operate as well when it is mixed in with respect or awe of the state.
With all this information, it is difficult to see why anyone would actually want to be a part of presidential government, but a reason does exist. Parliamentary government is the best form of democracy, but only if a country is unified enough to cooperate in parliamentary politics. If a country is divided into many parties, it may be impossible to find enough members to cooperate as a governing coalition, and so we have presidential government instead. In this fragmented power of ours lies a system that can operate as a referee for disputes: constitutional review. Under this system, a judicial part of the government can annul acts of other government parts if, in its judgment, the acts violate the constitution of the state. Despite the fact that a parliament is held with highest authority in the constitution of a parliamentary system, it is too great and diverse to actually take charge of governmental policy itself.
