6 ms·

Almost all Latin American countries are presidential republics. This is a system of government that basically guarantees instability. The separation of the exec

Almost all Latin American countries are presidential republics. This is a system of government that basically guarantees instability. The separation of the executive and the legislature is supposed to provide greater accountability, but eventually leads to populist presidents quarrelling with intransigent representatives. The result is political logjam and either the president finally disposes of the legislature, or the military gets rid of both. In contrast, Australia and Canada both have Westminster parliamentary systems, where the executive is drawn from the legislature. Thus, the prime minister is guaranteed a base of support there and populist candidates cannot entirely circumvent it. The system has its flaws, but it does seem to be more stable in the long run.

gruez 5y ago
>Almost all Latin American countries are presidential republics. This is a system of government that basically guarantees instability What about all the european presidential republics, and the US?
- coryrc 5y ago
  Jan 6
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    I'm sorry, you can consider Jan 6 to be many bad things, but none of those are a meaningful threat to American democracy.
    - reducesuffering 5y ago
      I’m sure you can use your imagination to foresee a variety of concerning scenarios that result from a mob killing many of our federal politicians.
    - rualca 5y ago
      > (...) but none of those are a meaningful threat to American democracy. Jam 6 was literally a coup attempt ordered by the president to disrupt the session in Congress that formalized the election results to avoid stepping down after losing the elections. Exactly which part of this do you believe is not a threat to any democracy?
    - coryrc 5y ago
      Neither was the beer hall putsch. It had no chance of overthrowing the government.
- fulafel 5y ago
  There aren't a lot of them in Europe, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government#Presidential_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of... I can pick Belarus, Cyprus and Turkey.
axiosgunnar 5y ago
According to this theory the USA should be a failed state then?
- HenryKissinger 5y ago
  The United States has the world's longest running presidential system, and is the only exception to the rule so far.
  - axiosgunnar 5y ago
    Interesting, what might be the reason for its success despite being a presidential system?
    - gpt5 5y ago
      The electoral system. It ensures a two party system which makes the government lean center (on both sides) and be very stable.
      - KSteffensen 5y ago
        I used to think the two party system was a major driver in polarization and resulting instability in the USA and UK, but I guess people can refuse to listen to each other in any system (Israel, Italy, Sweden).
    - bluedevil2k 5y ago
      Vast natural resources creating wealth for the entire population. (Before anyone says “there’s lots of poor people in America...they are not even close to poor by world standards). When the economy is almost always booming, jobs are plentiful, things are cheap, there’s no reason to overthrow a government. As the famous quote explains, “it’s the economy stupid”.
      - IdiocyInAction 5y ago
        That also applies to Argentina.
true_religion 5y ago
I think that this can be better qualified. Presidential republics make sense if you have a truly federalist system, formed by existing states that have unified under one government. The US for example does not have a centralized health care system, police force, banking system, legal system, and education system. Some, though not all, countries that have copied the US presidential system are in actuality centralized with most power being invested in the federal government and by proxy, the president. It is a recipe that dictators like as they can pretend to be democratic leaders but not actually have to share power. If your country is centralized parliament works best. If it is decentralized then any parliament is going to be toothless like the UN, entirely dominated by single strong internal powers like the EU, or incoherent like in Star Wars :)
- jkepler 5y ago
  The Federal Reserve is a pretty centralized banking system. To your point, however, the US has had prosperous period of its history with free (I.e. no central/federal control) banking. See Rothbard's "The Mystery of Banking."
- cturner 5y ago
  "If your country is centralized parliament works best. If it is decentralized then any parliament is going to be toothless like the UN" The Australian example undermines this claim. Australia is a true federation. Similar to the US, the constitutions of the six states predate the federation and remain in force. The federal constitution gives the federal gvt constrained powers (e.g. military, foreign affairs) with powers defaulting to the states (e.g. police, health). The country is broadly decentralised due to its constitution and geography. The federal parliament is a Westminster system - prime minister elected by members of the legislature, head of state that serves a largely symbolic role, distinct upper house designed as a house of review. The Australian settlement routinely produces stable government, workable majorities in parliament, is a true multi-party system, and has shown itself to be capable of big-picture reform. Admittedly, some of this is down to strong good microstructure. In particular, the preferential voting system. The Westminster system is also an strong fit for centralised countries, as seen in the UK and New Zealand. If there is one criticism of it, it is that it can be difficult to get enough of a gene pool together to form an effective executive when the population of house members is too small. Smaller Australian states often struggle to produce competent executives. There are similar problems in the almost-Westminster Scottish, Welsh and NI parliaments. These problems are further compounded by proportional representation, which favours chest-thumpers (small parties) and political hacks (large parties), all of whom are very poorly suited to executive responsibilities.
lkrubner 5y ago
That explanation wouldn't work for the era at the end of the 1800s when Venezuela adopted a USA type constitution that was meant to imitate the USA as closely as possible.
- jkepler 5y ago
  What did Venezuela change about their money in the 1970s? Follow the money.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

gruez 5y ago

>Almost all Latin American countries are presidential republics. This is a system of government that basically guarantees instability What about all the european presidential republics, and the US?

coryrc 5y ago
Jan 6
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  I'm sorry, you can consider Jan 6 to be many bad things, but none of those are a meaningful threat to American democracy.
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    I’m sure you can use your imagination to foresee a variety of concerning scenarios that result from a mob killing many of our federal politicians.
  - rualca 5y ago
    > (...) but none of those are a meaningful threat to American democracy. Jam 6 was literally a coup attempt ordered by the president to disrupt the session in Congress that formalized the election results to avoid stepping down after losing the elections. Exactly which part of this do you believe is not a threat to any democracy?
  - coryrc 5y ago
    Neither was the beer hall putsch. It had no chance of overthrowing the government.
fulafel 5y ago
There aren't a lot of them in Europe, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government#Presidential_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of... I can pick Belarus, Cyprus and Turkey.

axiosgunnar 5y ago

According to this theory the USA should be a failed state then?

HenryKissinger 5y ago
The United States has the world's longest running presidential system, and is the only exception to the rule so far.
- axiosgunnar 5y ago
  Interesting, what might be the reason for its success despite being a presidential system?
  - gpt5 5y ago
    The electoral system. It ensures a two party system which makes the government lean center (on both sides) and be very stable.
    - KSteffensen 5y ago
      I used to think the two party system was a major driver in polarization and resulting instability in the USA and UK, but I guess people can refuse to listen to each other in any system (Israel, Italy, Sweden).
  - bluedevil2k 5y ago
    Vast natural resources creating wealth for the entire population. (Before anyone says “there’s lots of poor people in America...they are not even close to poor by world standards). When the economy is almost always booming, jobs are plentiful, things are cheap, there’s no reason to overthrow a government. As the famous quote explains, “it’s the economy stupid”.
    - IdiocyInAction 5y ago
      That also applies to Argentina.

true_religion 5y ago

I think that this can be better qualified. Presidential republics make sense if you have a truly federalist system, formed by existing states that have unified under one government. The US for example does not have a centralized health care system, police force, banking system, legal system, and education system. Some, though not all, countries that have copied the US presidential system are in actuality centralized with most power being invested in the federal government and by proxy, the president. It is a recipe that dictators like as they can pretend to be democratic leaders but not actually have to share power. If your country is centralized parliament works best. If it is decentralized then any parliament is going to be toothless like the UN, entirely dominated by single strong internal powers like the EU, or incoherent like in Star Wars :)

jkepler 5y ago
The Federal Reserve is a pretty centralized banking system. To your point, however, the US has had prosperous period of its history with free (I.e. no central/federal control) banking. See Rothbard's "The Mystery of Banking."
cturner 5y ago
"If your country is centralized parliament works best. If it is decentralized then any parliament is going to be toothless like the UN" The Australian example undermines this claim. Australia is a true federation. Similar to the US, the constitutions of the six states predate the federation and remain in force. The federal constitution gives the federal gvt constrained powers (e.g. military, foreign affairs) with powers defaulting to the states (e.g. police, health). The country is broadly decentralised due to its constitution and geography. The federal parliament is a Westminster system - prime minister elected by members of the legislature, head of state that serves a largely symbolic role, distinct upper house designed as a house of review. The Australian settlement routinely produces stable government, workable majorities in parliament, is a true multi-party system, and has shown itself to be capable of big-picture reform. Admittedly, some of this is down to strong good microstructure. In particular, the preferential voting system. The Westminster system is also an strong fit for centralised countries, as seen in the UK and New Zealand. If there is one criticism of it, it is that it can be difficult to get enough of a gene pool together to form an effective executive when the population of house members is too small. Smaller Australian states often struggle to produce competent executives. There are similar problems in the almost-Westminster Scottish, Welsh and NI parliaments. These problems are further compounded by proportional representation, which favours chest-thumpers (small parties) and political hacks (large parties), all of whom are very poorly suited to executive responsibilities.

lkrubner 5y ago

That explanation wouldn't work for the era at the end of the 1800s when Venezuela adopted a USA type constitution that was meant to imitate the USA as closely as possible.

jkepler 5y ago
What did Venezuela change about their money in the 1970s? Follow the money.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]