Do we really need a president?

Great Debates
1

My husband is from Switzerland. Insted of a president, they have a committee of 7 people who make presidential decisions. There actually is a ‘president,’ but this position alternates yearly between the members of this committee. The president’s duties are mostly administrative and ceremonial, not hugely significant.

He criticizes the U.S. for having a president. He says this is just our communal need for a father figure.

So, do we need a president to lead us? Is there any purpose besides a psycholocal one?

If you were starting your own country/government, would you have a single authority figure like a president or prime minister?

2

Well…yes but he would probably have the title “Supreme Overlord” and most likely it would be me.

3

Out of curiosity, does he criticize all nations with a single head of state, or just the United States?

4

I think his criticism would apply to all nations with a single head of state, but since we live in the U.S. it mosly comes up about the American president.

5

Here’s something to try…next election, just have people vote for a party. Which ever party wins, have their reps act in the capacity of president. My guess is we won’t be able to tell the difference.

6

I don’t know enough about Switzerland to speak about the kinds of decisions that the Federal Council has to make, but I do know that on a regular basis the President of the United States has to make far-reaching, binding decisions that effect not just a nation of almost 300 million people, but the entire world.

The question of a Federal Council was raised during the creation of the U.S. Constitution and rejected in favor of the unity of the executive. Federalist Paper No. 70 sets out the reasons for having a single executive, the main one being that it is very difficult to make decisions by committee, especially quick decisions. No. 70 also points out that it is much easier for a single individual to take responsibility or blame without having a bunch of people with whom to share decisions.

What happens in Switzerland when there is extreme disagreement among the members of the council? What if they can’t come to any decision? I know that Switzerland doesn’t have to make military decisions, which may be one reason why they don’t need a strong, single executive, but what happens, for instance, if there is a case of malfeasance in the executive branch, and half the council sees a need for a complete reorganization and the other half is adamantly imposed? What if the country is similarly divided? What if the council makes decisions that are wildly unpopular? Can the whole council be thrown out through election or impeachment? These were all points that the Founding Fathers considered when deciding how to set up the Executive Branch.

Unity in the executive provides a lot more than just a father figure. It provides a leader who has the ultimate decision-making authority. It provides someone to represent the federal government to U.S. citizens, to the individual states and their governments, and to the world.

I find it interesting that the Swiss government, one of the few governments to which the Founding Fathers looked for an example when creating the United States, is also one of the few that does not have executive unity. I’m also very curious to know what your husband thinks are the advantages of having a divided executive.

Having been in numerous situations in which decisions were made by committee, and knowing the sheer frustration and slowness of that process, I would absolutely want a single executive (combined with a numerous legislative branch) in any country I founded.

7

I don’t know if we need one, but that’s how the consitution is set up, so you’d have to rework the organzation of the goverment from the ground up via a constituional convention or something like that.

Having a Top Man has advantages, i.e. being the person who represents the nation in World Affairs(if you want to address the leader, you’d say “President X” instead of “The Council of Y”), as well as only having to worry about electing one(or two if you count the VP) person to head office instead of however big the ruling conceil is. Even the switerzland example has somebody heading up the Council, which I don’t see how that’s too different from the President and his cabinet.

My question for your husband would be: Why is having a President worse then having a council or commitee who themselves have a leader? Why is a council inherently better then a single leader?

If the leader was a dictator I could see his point, but the President has limits to his power and has to answer to others.

8

**

I have to ask, does he actually have a valid criticism against having a head of state?

Marc

9

My valid criticism would be that it’d be more democratic to have several people decide instead of just one president. Then again, democracy at its core doesn’t really work well, so hierarchical structures are better for getting things done.

10

Having a head of state with ceremonial powers, of the kind found in most European countries, is harmless but a waste of time and money.

Having a head of state with real power of the kind favoured by, for example, just about every comic opera Latin America country has several disadvantages:

Disadvantage 1
There is a tendency for at least a third of the population to idolise the leader. Observe, for example, some of the old documentaries made during the aftermath of the assassination of that third rate show pony of a President, J. F. Kennedy. You can see numerous scenes of people who, after leaving memorial services to him that were held in churches throughout the land, disgracing themselves by bawling their little eyes out over the death of a perfect stranger who neither knew nor cared about them.

Disadvantage 2
A head of state with significant political power can destroy a country in a very short period of time, both economically and
politically. Once again, Latin America furnishes a number of excellent examples, including Uruguay and Argentina in the 1950’s, and Chile in the 1970’s. The danger of having an economically illiterate buffoon wreaking havoc on a country is considerably lessened (but not eliminated) in a system where there is a committee of politicians in charge, such as seen in parliamentary systems.

However, in the final analysis, both systems could best be described as elective dictatorships and neither system allows the people to be represented in any real sense.

Once the ritual of an election is out of the way, the persons elected, ie. those who falsely refer to themselves as “representatives” can do virtually as they please and can even indulge in abusing their power with relative impunity. The ability to be able to get away with abuses of power also applies to the civil servant class to a great extent.

Until such time as a latter day Solon establishes a system that would permit the people to be represented, it doesn’t really matter a great deal whether you have an elective dictatorship run by a head of state or by a committee. In neither case do the rulers need to take too much notice of the will of their subjects.

Incidentally, the claim that no one is above the law is believable only to those who look at the world through rose colored glasses.

11

**

Given the function of the Executive branch in the United States government I wonder why more democracy would be a good thing. The Executive branch needs to be able to, well, execute the laws of the land. A committe isn’t generally known for being decisive.

So why would it be better to have several people in the role of president?

Marc

12

Hey, you’d cry too if you woke up one day and Lyndon Johnson was President.

13

Does Switzerland have the equivalent of the separation of powers, with a Congress or whatever that is not appointed by the Executives? Because we already have 535 people also making decisions and passing laws, as well as nine people to do the deep thinking (well, that’s the idea).

14

Little Nemo,

I never thought of that!

15

Interesting criticism.

Has your husband studied the complete structure of the USA under the Constitution?

I think not.

16

I think you aren’t thinking at all, Duckster. The husband is likely to be naturalized and the foreign born often have a better understanding of how America works because they have to study our government in order to become citizens. Plus they don’t have the knee jerk assumptions of American superiority to overcome.

I also question the unspoken assumption of the OP that the President of the US is a father figure but the president of an executive council is not. In either case there is a single authority figure to identify with.

If I were forming a new government I wouldn’t go with an executive council. I tend to think they are more cumbersome than useful. I would rather see all of the chains of command end up at the same desk so we know who to blame when things go wrong. And before anyone lets out a gasp of disbelief let me point out that replacing the president with a council isn’t necessarily democratic. Sure the council would reach decisions by vote but so does the House of Lords.

17

He says the president of the executive council is such a minor thing that most Swiss couldn’t tell you who is the president at any time. It alternates among the members yearly.

I think we do look at the president as sort of a father figure, our Leader. He is supposed to be someone who inspires and excites. Personality is considered very important.

With a committee I would think the personality and charisma of each member would be taken into account less, and their competence would count more. YMMV.

I think for whatever reason, we do need a Leader to look up to. I’m not sure why. I never really considered it could be any other way until I met him.

18

Even among the House and Senate it is the people with charisma and personality who stand out and lead the way. Strom Thurmond, Newt Gingrich, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Hillary Clinton, and Dick Armey are the few that immediately come to mind.

Marc

19

Posted by Alan Owes Bess:

And if we had “a system that would permit the people to be represented,” how would it work, in your opinion? Would we have a parliamentary system instead of a separation-of-powers system? A proportional-representation system instead of a winner-take-all system? Or would it simply involve submitting as many questions as possible to popular referenda? (That last doesn’t seem to have to have worked out very well for the Californians.)

20

The Swiss can get away with lacking a specific Head of State because no-one really cares what the Swiss do, as long as they keep the banks open. Their policy of strict military neutrality means (ideally) that the nation never falls under attack, requiring swift decisive action.

The Americans are unusual among democracies in that their head of state actually does things, as opposed to the figurehead presidents of France and Israel and the monarchist system of the Commnwealth nations. Considering their role as the remaining superpower, I can’t say I have a problem with a Commander-in-Chief of the American military who can respond to “clear and present danger” threats, so long as he eventually has to explain himself to Congress.

The cult of celebrity surrounding a President, on the other hand, is something I do find disturbing. The obsessive analysis of personal details is just tiresome, as it is from people who write excessively about the Royal Family or entertainers. Get a life, losers.

I think Alan’s full of crap when he writes dismissively about people being upset when a president is assassinated. In countries where political disputes are routinely settled by gunfire, maybe you can be calmer about it, but a nation that claims to be civilized should absolutely not tolerate “bullet fixes”. So the people mourned. Let them. What’s your damage?