In the context – last week – of the question of whether Trump would defy the courts, I was surprised to hear the US democratic model described as an ‘experiment’. But I suppose that, if Trump manages to destroy it, this will certainly have been the case.

It got me wondering whether a key weakness in the US system is that, if 2 of its 3 pillars combine – as with an authoritarian president and an afeared/pusillanimous legislature – then there’s little that the third – the courts – can do to stop the abuse of presidential power which the founding fathers sought to prevent via checks and balances.

And this is what we seem to be witnessing now, as the White House openly defies a court in respect of Venezuelans sent in chains to El Salvador. While, of course, claiming that it isn’t. This, I believe is being done under the doctrine of unitary executive theory.

See here on this development . . . This is American Gestapo. Deportations without due process – something not normally associated with functioning democracies. Which, as I say, the USA might be ceasing to be under the power-crazed triumvirate of Trump, Voght and Musk.

Needless to say, this abuse has been openly defended by the glib and slimy White House Press Officer. Who, one has to say, is extremely good at being disingenuous and, indeed, at openly lying. But, then, this is what she was expressly hired to do. A future president??

To say the least, it will be an interesting day today. I suppose we have to thank the insane Trump for living under this Chinese curse.

Below are 3 relevant answers from an AI engine which might be of interest to some, as we see some of the issues being played out in real time during what is surely a US constitutional crisis.

1. DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS

The US presidential system differs from a parliamentary system in several key aspects:

Structure and Power Distribution

• In the US presidential system, executive power is vested in a separate elected president, while in a parliamentary system, it is held by the elected parliament or legislature.
• The US system maintains a clear separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, whereas parliamentary systems often intertwine these branches.

Leadership

• The head of government in the US is the president, who serves as both head of state and head of government. In parliamentary systems, the prime minister is usually the head of government.
• The US president forms the government and appoints cabinet ministers independently, while in parliamentary systems, the government is formed by the majority party or coalition.

Accountability and Tenure

• The US president is not directly accountable to the legislature and has a fixed term of office. In contrast, the prime minister in a parliamentary system is accountable to parliament and can be removed through a vote of no confidence.
• The US president cannot be dismissed by the legislature, whereas in parliamentary systems, the government can be dissolved by a vote of no confidence.

Legislative Process

• In the US system, the president has a significant role in policy-making and legislation, including veto powers. Parliamentary systems generally give the parliament more control over legislation and policy-making.
• The US president cannot dissolve the legislature or call for new elections, unlike in many parliamentary systems where the prime minister might have this power.

Stability and Decision-Making

• The US presidential system often provides more stability in government, as the president’s term cannot be cut short except in exceptional circumstances.
• Decision-making in the US system can be faster, as the president can make decisions without consulting party leaders in the legislature, which is often necessary for prime ministers in parliamentary systems.

These differences reflect the unique characteristics of each system, with the US presidential system emphasizing strong executive leadership and separation of powers, while parliamentary systems focus more on collective decision-making and legislative supremacy.

2. STABILITY

This is a complex issue with arguments on both sides:

Short-term Stability

• The US presidential system generally offers more short-term stability:
• Presidents have fixed terms and cannot be easily removed, providing consistent leadership during crises.
• It’s very difficult to remove a president before their term ends, unlike prime ministers who can face votes of no confidence.

Long-term Stability

• Parliamentary systems may have advantages for long-term stability:
• They are more flexible, allowing for changes in leadership without governmental collapse.
• Parliamentary systems are associated with lower rates of democratic failure and authoritarianism

Of the world’s 22 older democracies, only two – Costa Rica and the USA – use presidential systems.

Policy Stability

The impact on policy stability differs between the systems:

• Presidential systems can lead to gridlock when the president and legislature are in opposition, potentially hampering policy implementation.
• Parliamentary systems often provide more consistent policy direction due to the fusion of executive and legislative powers.

Economic Stability

Some research suggests parliamentary systems may offer greater economic stability:

• Parliamentary regimes tend to exhibit higher GDP growth rates, lower income inequality, and less economic instability.
• They are better equipped to handle long-term projects due to potentially more stable and continuous governance.

While the US presidential system provides strong short-term governmental stability, parliamentary systems may offer advantages in terms of long-term democratic stability and policy consistency.

However, the success of either system depends on various factors, including the specific implementation and the political culture of the country.

3. SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ABUSE

Both presidential and parliamentary systems have potential vulnerabilities to abuse, but they differ in their susceptibility to certain types of misuse.

Presidential System Vulnerabilities

Presidential systems can be more prone to abuse in the following ways:

• Concentration of power: The president holds significant executive authority, which can lead to potential overreach or abuse of power.
• Lack of immediate accountability: Presidents are typically elected for fixed terms and cannot be easily removed from office, except through impeachment, which is a high bar.
• Potential for unilateral decision-making: Presidents can often make decisions without consulting other branches of government, potentially bypassing checks and balances.

Parliamentary System Safeguards

Parliamentary systems have some inherent features that may help mitigate abuse:

• Collective responsibility: The cabinet is accountable to the legislature, providing more immediate checks on executive power.
• Flexibility in government formation: The appointment of officials allows for more adaptability and can potentially prevent corruption and abuse of power.
• Easier removal of leadership: Prime ministers can be more readily removed through votes of no confidence, providing a more responsive system to address potential abuses.

However, it’s important to note that both systems have mechanisms to prevent abuse. Presidential systems often have strong separation of powers and checks and balances, while parliamentary systems rely on collective decision-making and legislative oversight.

Ultimately, the potential for abuse in any system depends on various factors, including the strength of democratic institutions, the rule of law, and the political culture of the country in question.