Admittedly, I do not know much about this subject, but is seems to me that a president (or prime minister, premier, etc.) is not necessary for the administration of a country. I would think that a senate and congress would do fine without one most powerful person.
Is that true, false, in between?
Enlighten me.
It’s quasi-false but not totally so.
Someone has to administer the country, ensure that the laws passed by the Congress/Parliament/Legislature are in fact being carried out, that taxes are being collected and the money raised used to pay for what the C/P/L specified, ensure that the armed forces of the country are functioning in accord with the C/P/L’s directives, etc.
That need not be a single person, though for convenience’ sake it normally is – a committee is not an effective way to manage authority. Switzerland and Uruguay for years operated (and may still do so) under a collegial executive, so it can be done. However, having one person in charge, with a government operating under his direction, with him limited by grundlagen (Constitution-level laws), seems to be the standard human-society way to get things done.
Remember that most of the functions of government are to be there when sweet reason and good nature will not resolve problems – ranging from fights at a bar to border clashes to assuring that the poor are fed and housed – all of which could be done without government intervention if people acted reasonably, compassionately, and peacably, but they don’t.
Also, a committee of any sort is not good at responding quickly. If there’s an emergency (war, natural disaster, terrorist incident) and you want to respond in a timely fashion, then you probably don’t have time to assemble hundreds of lawmakers and fully debate the issue. You need someone who is empowered to do something now, but who can be overruled by the lawmakers if necessary.
I’d say the United States could be run without a President. You’d have Congress acted more like a Parliament with the Speaker of the House being the equivalent of a Prime Minister. There are arguments for and against such a system; some people would like a government with less internal dissent, other people feel the government needs a system of checks and balances.
Pun intended: Bush isn’t exactly a president in charge for example… he is “handled” by a number of his team. If Bush just dissapeared for a month the country would more or less keep going in the same direction. I would guess most presidents could dissapear for some time without much problem. (Maybe even better…)
Like someone mentioned before... centralizing decision during crisis is usually more expedient and practical. Having a defined hierarchy makes things run a bit more smoothly. Having one politician with the final word is necessary sometimes. Avoids too much political infighting... like Rummy and Powell for example.
There are some political scientists (Weber?) that favor a technocratic bureaucracy that would be capable and reasonably independent from politics to carry on things even if the "chief" is being changed all the time. To maintain some continuity without letting politics get in the way of governance.Well, SOMEONE has to be ultimately accountable for the executive functions of a government. Whether the executive functions are a separate branch of government (as in the US) or part of a parliament (like the UK) doesn’t matter terribly much, in the big sense of things.
But let me point out two advantages of having a president: first, one person is calling the shots when it really counts. Why is this important? In 216 BC, Roman legions totalling 80,000 men were under the control of two consuls, Varro and Paullus. They had different ideas on how to defeat Hannibal’s force of 35,000 soliders, so they took turns in commanding the legions. The confusion led to mistakes, lack of coordination, and a historic rout of the superior Roman forces. Having 535 consuls for the United States would probably go against one of these basic lessons of history.
Second, in the US form of government, power is distrubted to the three branches of government. If you eliminate the executive branch, then it is harder for checks and balances to limit an overreach of governmental power.
The authors of the Constitution were terrified of one branch of government having too much power. That’s where the whole checks and balances thing comes from. The president is necessary to head the branch that executes the laws as well as to help control the legislative branch (vetos and such).
Remember our constitution provides for a separation between law-making and law-executing bodies. For the legislative body, you want a deliberative structure with debates and voting. For an executive branch, it really is helpful to have someone who can give orders and assume responsibility. This is especially true in times of war and other national crises, as diceman points out.
And a minor nitpick/hijack for Ravenman. You’re not wrong but I’m sure you’d agree that Hannibal’s generalship was also a factor.
The Science Council that ran the planet Krypton, remember? Chaired by Jor-El. How much more sensible that seemed when I was a kid reading Superman comics. No more messy, egotistical, politics. Just run the body politic with clean, rational, efficient Science.
John Lennon’s 1980 interview in Playboy, done at the end of his life, published about the same time he was murdered — he was commenting on the recent presidential election and said something like “Every four years we elect a daddy. Why do we keep thinking we need a daddy?” Really made me think. Can’t the human race ever get beyond the fixation that we need a Big Man to lord it over us? When I saw the thread title, a big black A in a circle turned on in my mind.