Hacker News Reader

Comment by epolanski | Hacker News Reader

It's incredible how little respect there is for political systems that incentivize stability.

Parliamentary republics do tend to form less stable governments, but it's also true that you can really govern by compromising both with your party, allies, and opposition.

In over 50 years not a single parliamentary republic has turned authoritarian, in fact only Sri Lanka in the 70s has done so since world war 2.

Presidential and semi-presidential republics? They are all just waiting for the right person at the right time, from Turkey to Nicaragua to the Philippines to Russia, etc, etc.

I don't think any modern country should aim at anything less than boring, albeit unstable, parliamentary republics, with presidents that are not elected by popular vote (like in Germany or Italy) and have no executive power.

If your country is doing good, you likely want minor/middle steer adjustements, not radical changes at each new vote.

View on HN

I think it's the explicit lack of executive power that's the important part, not the lack of a direct popular vote. There doesn't seem to be much of a difference between say, the presidency of Finland (elected) and that of Estonia (appointed).

In fact, I'd say that Ireland's (directly elected) presidency has been one of the most notably successful, particularly in the post-1990 period when it's taken on more of a "cultural" rather than "political" focus.

I might be biased because I'm Polish, where the president is elected, and I hate the system compared to Germany or Italy.

A political head of state is not good imho, just ends up vetoing and doing politics instead of acting as a guardian of the constitution and institutions.

It's just a matter of "elect president from government's opposition and he's now emboldened to veto and block anything because he has popular mandate to do so".

Politicians electing the president seems a better option because they need to compromise on an individual that will allow any party to govern and be checked.

Counterpoint when things aren't going well you may need major adjustments. For example The Civil War, the Great Depression etc.

> In over 50 years not a single parliamentary republic has turned authoritarian, in fact only Sri Lanka in the 70s has done so since world war 2.

Also I take issue with this stawnt as basically no Presidential Republic that had a functioning Presidential Republic prior to WW2 has gone authoritarian. What your pointing to has more to do with the overall legitimacy of governments themselves.

In addition your claim itself is false as we have plenty of parliamentary republics that devolve into authoritarian dictatorships including but not limited to - Mynamar - Nigeria - Ghana - Uganda - South Korea (Second Republic) - Syria - Pakistan experiencing various military coups.

A military coup impacts equally any system, so it's irrelevant.

And no, the numbers are very clear, presidential and semi presidential republics absolutely dominate the share of countries turning authoritarian.

Presidents do not need a majority trust of their parliament, support of their coalition nor party, as prime ministers need every single day. A PM is one vote away from having to resign, which is why those governments change much more often.

Presidents can claim popular mandate, prime ministers less so, you vote the party, which forms coalitions, not the candidate directly (albeit some parties change name to include the candidate name). This is incredibly important because it authorizes individual to do almost as they please and default to the fact that they were voted to do so.

Presidential and semi presidential republics naturally breed a personal cult that is difficult to replicate.

Mature developed countries have more to lose allowing individuals major adjustments testing their power boundaries nonstop (see this presidency in US) than to gain.

> In over 50 years not a single parliamentary republic has turned authoritarian

What about Turkey? (I consider it among the parliamentary republics as it was so until 2017, when the authoritarian shift was already ongoing. In other words, the sequence has been: parliamentary, then turned authoritarian, then changed to presidential.)

Good point, I consider it borderline as it needed the transition via constitutional reform and a popular referendum to settle it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com