Presidentialism: A System of Separated Powers

Presidentialism

The presidential form of government has a rational genesis, the result of dogmatic reflection, and is strongly inspired by Montesquieu's theory on the separation of powers. When developing the United States Constitution in 1787, there were no empirical precedents in determining the form of government. In other words, there was no previous constitution worthy of the name, nor did the democratic principle, as a legitimating principle, have precedent. The only record was theoretical and, in regard specifically to the form of government, was that set by the Frenchman Montesquieu in The Spirit of Laws, which analyzes the English political system.

Montesquieu's Theory

Montesquieu's theory on the separation of powers needed to sift through the democratic principle, that is, adapting to a republican form of government necessarily and purged of aristocratic traits. From here, its receipt would be of extraordinary intensity.

The U.S. presidential system responds to the formulation of this author, in a strict division of powers. These are independent of origin and mandate:

• The Executive Power is concentrated in a single-member judiciary, the President. There is no government in the strict sense, in the European parliamentary style, as a body that decides and is jointly accountable, but a series of senior service Secretaries of the Presidency. The political decision is taken by the President alone.

The President of the United States is independent of origin because they are elected by the people through universal suffrage, direct in practice but formally indirect. That is, they receive their legitimacy directly from the people, outside the will of any other state power. They also enjoy financial independence because, during their mandate (four years), they cannot be dismissed for political reasons by the action of any of the other powers. A different question would be if they could be removed for criminal law issues (e.g., Watergate).

• The Legislative Power is vested in a bicameral parliament: the Congress, consisting of two chambers: the Senate (two for each of the 50 States = 100 senators) and the House of Representatives. The Parliament also enjoys double independence:
• Independence of origin: They are entitled to proceed directly, elected by universal suffrage.
• Independence of exercise: Because it cannot be dissolved by the President, and the mandate given by the electorate is a fixed term: six years for the Senate and two for the House of Representatives.

The Risk of Conflict

The problem of a strict division of powers is the risk of conflict between them. Because let's not forget that the state, even the democratic state, is, by logical necessity, a decision unit.

The risk is the creation of dualism, or even more if one considers the independence of the Supreme Court. Although it lacks home legitimacy because its members are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate, it has independence of exercise because the charge is for life. This strict separation of powers, as we have noted, raises the issue of an eventual confrontation between them that prevents or hinders the decision unit.

However, in Presidentialism, there are no legal mechanisms to ensure that decision-making unit.

Montesquieu had already been aware of this possible situation, thus he differentiated between the power to decide or to order and the possibility of preventing, understanding that, although decision-making capacity in the various branches of government should be attributed to each of the powers, these were not isolated from each other dramatically, by a certain ability to resist interference in unacceptable decisions for any of these powers.

Thus, the Constitution allows the President to oppose legislation by veto, a competition from standstill to the laws, only surpassed by the law on ratification of both houses by a two-thirds majority in each.

However, the Senate may oppose the appointments of political and judicial officials it considers unacceptable, but it cannot force the President to accept its proposals. The President, in turn, can reject a law but cannot impose their own.

These problems have always been resolved with extra-constitutional means (not unconstitutional). Examples include political pressure on Senators and Representatives or the political appeal to the people through mass media. That is, influencing public opinion.