Globally, countries with presidential systems are much more likely to devolve into dictatorships than those with british-inspired parliamentary systems. There'

Globally, countries with presidential systems are much more likely to devolve into dictatorships than those with british-inspired parliamentary systems. There's pros and cons to each system of course. The American "checks and balances" results in complete inability to act a lot of the time. See the frequent budget shutdowns, or compare and contrast the ability to legislate for issues like "maniacs are shooting up our schools". The downside of course is that the great "freedom of action" of a british government can result in self harming or ill considered policies being rail roaded through. See something like brexit: it is doubtful that many countries with "checks and balances" would be able to muster the political will and broad agreement to do it in the first place. But a british government can just go YOLO. I think a parliamentary system is better despite this because it puts the establishment in control. To become PM, you have to climb to the top of a party first (which requires many years of dedication). Some war hero, billionaire, or other radical can't just waltz into the position from nowhere. And then a PM is at all times beholden to the support of their party, which can be removed at any time if they turn out to be an idiot (see truss - nobody had to put up with her for 4 years). The danger in britain is the move to more "democracy" in choosing PMs. If it were left to the establishment (ie MPs) things are more boring. But when it is "democratised" to party members that's when the crazies come in - the corbyns and trusses. This is an unfortunate decline of elite control in Britain which hopefully will be rolled back now that everyone has seen the unintended consequences.