The problem with Presidential systems

Try and watch this all the way through. I dare you.





The American Founding Fathers were rightly skeptical of the Westminster system which sought to combine the executive and legislature. In the Federalist Papers # 47, the writers approvingly quote Montesquieu "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates".

However, they did so on the belief that future times would mirror if not be better than their own in ensuring public and professional scrutiny of those who would seek higher office. The last is perhaps the most critical, even in 1776 when travel took days not hours, when written communication could take weeks not seconds, the US founding fathers still assumed that candidates for national office would be first vetted and tested against their peers in open debate and argument, before turning to the people for endorsement.

While the propensity for corruption or intimidation of the legislature is clearly still apparent within the Westminster system, becoming or running for the highest office requires the endorsement of a politicians political peers. And that only occurs after years and years of being faced with and responding to tough questions, asked on the spot, with no mercy expected or demanded.

Occasionally mistakes are made, and increasingly Australian politics seems to be sliding towards the desire for 'exciting new celebrity' candidates who's newness seems capable of delivering public endorsement, and occasionally mistakes of judgement are made (Mark Latham's choice comes to mind), but even there, they still have to wade into the bear pit of Question time, and are expected to handle doorstop interviews on any subject, and do so several times a week if not per day.

In this way, candidates prove first that they can not only have thought about an issue, but also can articulate that thought to the public before they get anywhere near the leaders office. This was the basic competence that the US founding fathers expected all candidates for the Executive to have, hence their concern more with how these offices interacted, than establishing a way to vet those who would seek them.

Sarah Palin proves that system is broken. And whilst the fail-safe of the public is still in place (and looking increasingly like it will reject Palin as unprepared) there is still a dangerous chance that such an incapable candidate could take the office of Vice President of the United States of America come January 20 2009.

This isn't about simple eloqution. I'm a uni lecturer and yet sometimes make George W Bush sound articulate. I make mistakes with words, forget words and even get things backwards. But I can still think about an issue and communicate that thought in response to any question i could sensibly be asked. Even my students, scarred 18yr olds who are in their first semester if not class in politics in their life would do a better job of sensibly responding to the questions asked by Couric in the interview.

Nor is this about ideology, I couldn't make this argument against any of the handful of rumored choices McCain had on hand like Pawlenty, Liberman, even Romney. Hell even George Bush somewhat passes this test.

Yet despite all this McCain chose Palin, and in doing so proved the essential weakness of the US Presidential System as it stands today. Are their ways to fix this ? Perhaps, but in future all scholars and philosophers of democratic political systems will have to recognise the fundamental inability of Presidential systems to ensure a basic competence or quality for the candidates for Highest office. Such a notion may sound undemocratic, but the US founding fathers were not democrats, they were building a republic and the quality of governance was very important to them.

One final thought, Palins selection has re-affirmed by clear preference for the Australian system. Why ? - Simple, Because someone like Sarah Palin could never become PM or even a junior minister.

We might not have the inspiring candidates ala Kennedy, Reagan or Obama, but we at least get competent ones(Howard however much you may disagree with him was always highly competent). Thats good enough for me.